Court Opinion

ID: 9711919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:42:01.796015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:08.294425
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority's holding that the trial court may make annual adjust ments in child support based only on the court's support guidelines and the parties' financial statements. I believe the provision in the trial court's decree allowing such adjustments violates Ind.Code 831-1-11.5-17 because it allows child support to be modified without a showing of a substantial and continuing change in cireum-stances. Under this decree Nicholas' child support obligation may be modified annually on a showing of any change in the parties' income. Thus, if Nicholas suffers a business loss in December 1984, his child support obligation will automatically be reduced throughout 1985, even if his income returns to normal in that year. Further, Susan will be unable to avoid this reduction even by showing the drop in Nicholas' income was only temporary. The majority's view that such a result is consistent with Ind.Code $1-1-11.5-17 seems completely untenable.
Indeed, the majority hardly bothers to explain how such a decree can be upheld *572under the statute, choosing instead to justify the result by invoking the concepts of judicial economy and the best interests of the children. All of these public policy arguments, however, merely suggest that the General Assembly should revise the statutes to allow this sort of self-adjusting decree. It should be noted that our present statutory scheme promotes judicial economy by removing from trial courts the duty of continuously monitoring minor or temporary changes in the parties' circumstances. -It also discourages frivolous petitions to modify child support by placing a heavy burden on the petitioner to prove a substantial and continuing change in circumstances has occurred. The decree here, by contrast, seems likely to give rise to prolonged litigation every year as each party challenges the accuracy of the other's financial statement. For these very reasons, although there is a split on this issue, courts in several states have rejected automatic "escalator clauses. E.g., Stanaway v. Stanaway, (1976) 70 Mich.App. 294, 245 N.W.2d 723; Breiner v. Breiner, (1975) 195 Neb. 143, 236 N.W.2d 846; Provenzano v. Provenzano, (1979) T1 A.D.2d 618, 418 N.Y.S.2d 140; Falls v. Falls, (1981) 52 N.C.App. 203, 278 S.E.2d 546; Picker v. Vollenhover, (1956) 206 Or. 45, 290 P.2d 789; Karim v. Karim, (1980) S.D., 290 N.W.2d 479. See Annot., 19 AL. R.4th 880.
I would accordingly vacate the portion of the trial court's decree requiring an annual adjustment of child support and affirm the trial court's decree in all other respects.