Tammy J Young v. Chad A Young

Indianapolis, IN - Divorce lawyer represented Appellant appealing an educational support obligation order.

Mother and Father are the parents of T.Y. In June 2011, the dissolution court

dissolved Mother and Father's marriage. Thereafter, in May 2015, Mother and

Father entered into an agreed order that provided in relevant part as follows:

Commencing on November 14, 2014, [Father] shall pay to

[Mother] weekly child support in the amount of $241.00 . . . .

This Order shall continue as an Educational Support Order until

such time as [T.Y.] graduates from a college or university,

reaches the age of twenty-four (24) years old or discontinues

education for a period of five (5) consecutive months and obtains

fulltime employment, whichever date is earlier . . . .

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 23.

[3] T.Y. enrolled at Butler University in the fall of 2016 and later transferred to

IUPUI. In May 2020, Father ceased paying educational support to Mother.

Thereafter, Mother filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause alleging that Father

had prematurely ceased paying educational support.

[4] At a fact-finding hearing on Mother's petition, there was no dispute that T.Y.

had not reached the age of twenty-four and had not graduated from a college or

university at the time Father had ceased making the educational support

payments. T.Y. testified that her last semester at IUPUI ended in May 2020,

although she had not graduated. From May 2020 to July 2020, she was not

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-DR-1787 | January 25, 2022 Page 3 of 4

employed. And from July 2020 to mid-March 2021, T.Y. had only part-time

employment. In April 2021, T.Y. obtained full-time employment.

[5] Following the fact-finding hearing, the trial court concluded that "the intent” of

the May 2015 agreed order "was that[,] once [T.Y.] stopped her education for

five (5) months, there would be no further obligation.” Tr. p. 21. The court then

concluded that Father's obligation to pay educational support ended in May

2020. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Mother appeals the trial court's interpretation of the parties' May 2015 agreed

order. We interpret contracts and prior orders of the trial court de novo and

without deference to the trial court's judgment. See, e.g., Epworth Forest Admin.

Comm., Inc. v. Powell, 79 N.E.3d 918, 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

[7] Further, Father has not filed an appellee's brief. In such appeals, we will reverse

if the appellant demonstrates prima facie error, which is "error at first sight, on

first appearance, or on the face of it.” Pfledderer v. Pratt, 142 N.E.3d 492, 494

(Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[8] The relevant provision of the parties' May 2015 agreed order states:

Commencing on November 14, 2014, [Father] shall pay to

[Mother] weekly child support in the amount of $241.00 . . . .

This Order shall continue as an Educational Support Order until

such time as [T.Y.] graduates from a college or university,

reaches the age of twenty-four (24) years old or discontinues

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-DR-1787 | January 25, 2022 Page 4 of 4

education for a period of five (5) consecutive months and obtains fulltime

employment, whichever date is earlier. . . .

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 23 (emphasis added).

[9] We agree with Mother that the emphasized language above was intended by

the parties to be read together. That is, the agreed entry provides for three

circumstances in which Father could cease making educational support

payments: (1) T.Y. graduates from a college or university, which the facts do

not demonstrate; (2) T.Y. turns twenty-four years old, which the facts do not

demonstrate occurred at the time Father had ceased his educational support

payments; or (3) T.Y. discontinues her education for five consecutive months

and also obtains full-time employment. There is no dispute that she discontinued

her education for five consecutive months, and the record shows that she did

not obtain full-time employment until April 2021, nearly a year after Father had

ceased his educational support payments.

Accordingly, we hold that Mother has demonstrated prima facie error. Under the

language of the May 2015 agreed order, Father was not entitled to cease his

educational support payments when he did so in May 2020. We therefore

reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for the court to recalculate

Father’s educational support arrearage.



[11] Reversed and remanded with instructions