HAMILTON V. HAMILTON 914 N.E.2d 747 (2009) CASE BRIEF

HAMILTON V. HAMILTON

914 N.E.2d 747 (2009)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Hamilton (W) appealed an order in Indiana that did not hold Hamilton (H) in contempt for failure to pay support ordered by a Florida court.

FACTS: H and W were granted a divorce in Florida. W got physical custody of the couple's two children. H was required to pay support in the amount of $1,473 per month. The judgment required H to pay a $3,619 arrearage in support from the time the couple separated in March 2005. By January 2006 H owed a total of $11,879. W filed a contempt motion fin the Florida court. H did not appear. H was held in contempt. H was sentenced to 170 days in jail unless he tendered $7,500 within twenty days. The court also set up a payment schedule for H to satisfy the balance of the arrearages and the ongoing support obligation. H moved to Indiana where he lived with his parents. W registered the Florida support judgment and contempt order in Vanderburgh, Indiana Superior Court. The Indiana court ruled that the child support judgment was a properly registered foreign order entitled to full faith and credit. The court concluded that remedies for contempt are discretionary and do not bind responding tribunals. Although the Indiana court found H in contempt, it stayed the jail sentence if H tendered $3,750 and made monthly payments of $1,250. The court established H's arrearages at $20,466.50. Richard struggled to meet his monthly obligations. The Indiana trial court ordered H to serve 170 days in the county jail, but stayed the sentence contingent upon H's paying W $1,000, obtaining full-time employment, and executing a wage assignment in an amount specified by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines or $150 per week, whichever was greater. W kept brining court actions asking the court to find H in contempt and asked for larger monthly payments and more aggressive enforcement of the Florida support order. H testified that he was working between thirty and fifty hours per week and earning $7 per hour. H was paying an average of $150 per week in support. The trial court ruled that Richard was not in contempt of the Indiana orders as withholding was limited by federal law under the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act. W appealed contending the Indiana court made an impermissible modification of the Florida support judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner