Login | December 22, 2024
Father wins new trial in dissolution case
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: April 15, 2013
A Lake County court abused its discretion by denying a father’s motion for a new trial in a dissolution case, the 11th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.
Jeff Heidnik appealed a 2012 domestic relations court magistrate’s decision that ordered child support to be paid by his ex-wife, Marsha Heidnik, and denied his motion for a new trial.
At issue is whether a party may file a motion to change or terminate child support under an existing shared parenting plan without first filing a motion to modify the plan.
Case summary details that the Heidniks, who had two children together, filed a dissolution in 2006.
According to the shared parenting plan, Jeff was required to pay child support.
The children were to make their legal residence with Marsha for school purposes and have parenting time with Jeff on alternating weekends and on one weekday per week.
In 2009, Jeff wrote a letter to the Lake County Child Support Enforcement Division that the children were now living with him. Jeff testified he and Marsha agreed she would pay child support while the children lived with him and would give him title to a Toyota Corolla.
In 2011, the magistrate found child support could not be awarded retroactively to April 2010, as requested by Jeff. Instead, child support was found payable to Jeff as of the October 2010 date the motion for child support was filed.
Jeff argued the trial court erred by stating he was not entitled to child support because he failed to first file a motion to modify the shared parenting plan.
Marsha claimed a change in custody was required to grant his motion for child support since the requested change altered the obligor/obligee relationship. She also argued Jeff’s child support obligation should not have been terminated without a finding of a change of custody.
The 11th District remanded the child support determination and reversed the lower court’s findings on Jeff’s motion for a new trial.
“… To simply deny Jeff’s motion for support would require him to file a new motion, seeking to alter the shared parenting plan and start the process over again,” 11th District Judge Diane V. Grendell wrote in a 3-0 opinion. “This does not appear to be an effective use of the court’s time and resources, when the issue could have been addressed based on the motion which had already been filed and upon which a hearing had been held.”
11th District judges Cynthia Westcott Rice and Thomas R. Wright concurred.
The case, In Re: The Marriage of Marsha L. Heidnik and Jeff J. Heidnik, is cited 2012-L-031 and 2012-L-049.