A. Child Support Worksheet[8] “Indiana Child Support Guideline 3(B)(1), Income Verification, provides that a child support worksheet shall be completed and signed by both parties and filed with the court ‘when the court is asked to order support’ .... “ Pryor v. Bostwick, 818 N.E.2d 6, 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (citing Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ). The commentary to Guideline 3(B) provides, in pertinent part:
Accordingly, we remand for clarification of the child support award by showing either that the award complied with the Child Support Guidelines or that the award deviated from the guidelines and explaining the deviation. See Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 551 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (remanding for clarification of child support award where it was not clear whether the award was based on the Child Support Guidelines and where there was no explanation for any deviation). In Dye, we recognized that a party's failure to file a child support worksheet should prevent “the non-complying party from challenging the income figures arrived at by the trial court.”
But neither OCGA § 19–6–15(c)(4) nor Rule 24.2 states the consequence of failing to file the worksheet and schedules, or of filing them in an untimely manner. See Williamson v. Williamson, 825 N.E.2d 33, 43(II), n. 4 (Ind.App.2005); Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ind.App.1995). “ Where a statute [or rule] directs that a thing be done in a certain time without negative words prohibiting the subsequent performance, generally, the provision of time is directory only; where no injury results from such delay, subsequent performance is deemed substantial compliance with the statutory requirements.”
"The overwhelming weight of authority in this country is to the effect that, where there are several devisees or legatees whose interests are several, and not joint, the declarations and admissions of one of these are not admissible, because they would operate to the prejudice of the other devisees. See cases already cited, and the following of our own which adhere to the same rule: In re Ames, 51 Iowa 596; Dye v. Young, 55 Iowa 433; Parsons v. Parsons, 66 Iowa 754; Goldthorp's Estate, 94 Iowa 336; Hertrich v. Hertrich, 114 Iowa 643; Hull v. Hull, 117 Iowa 738; Fothergill v. Fothergill, 129 Iowa 93; Vannest v. Murphy, 135 Iowa 123. Chaslavka v. Mechalek, 124 Iowa 69, relied upon by appellant, does not announce a contrary doctrine."
te of Burton , 64 Cal. 428; Mattingly v. Pennie , 105 Cal. 524; 45 Am. St. Rep. 87; Estate of Backus , 95 Cal. 671.) Where fraud is alleged, the declarations of the testator, either before or after the execution of the will, are admissible. (1 Redfield on Wills, 511, 543.) Where there is evidence of undue influence, the subsequent declarations of the testator are admissible to show the condition of his mind, and the effect which the influence had upon him. (Waterman v. Whitney , 11 N.Y. 165; 62 Am. Dec. 71; Marx v. McGlynn , 88 N.Y. 358; note to In re Hess, 31 Am. St. Rep. 690; 1 Redfield on Wills, 556; Dennis v. Weekes , 51 Ga. 24; Canada's Appeal , 47 Conn. 450; Roberts v. Trawick , 17 Ala. 55; 52 Am. Dec. 164; Gilbert v. Gilbert , 22 Ala. 529; 58 Am. Dec. 268; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 62 Iowa 163; Neel v. Potter , 40 Pa. St. 483; Griffith v. Diffenderffer , 50 Md. 466; Dye v. Young, 55 Iowa 433.) JUDGES: Harrison, J. Van Fleet, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.
Expressions of fixed purposes and intentions at variance with the provisions of the will have weight in determining the question of undue influence. (Dye v. Young, 55 Iowa 433; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 62 Iowa 163.) An inequitable distribution of property tends to show undue influence.
Therefore, Father has demonstrated prima facie error and we must remand to the trial court for clarification of its award. See, e.g., Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 551 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). [17] Father also argues that if we remand the issue of child support, we should remand for the trial court to reconsider its determination regarding uninsured medical expense obligations and the allocation of child tax exemptions.
However, when a party fails to file a worksheet, he is precluded from challenging the income figures arrived at by the trial court. Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 550–51 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). As we have previously cautioned, “we strongly discourage [calculating support without worksheets] and urge trial courts in the exercise of their discretion to require verified child support worksheets in every case.
We decline to reverse because of an alleged error in the income figure the trial court used to determine her child support obligation. See Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (trial court follows Indiana Child Support Guidelines when it orders child support based on income figure listed on Child Support Worksheet). Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.
" However, we have held that while the child support guideline "does state that the parties `shall' file a worksheet, it does not state the consequence of failing to file one." Dye v. Young, 655 N.E.2d 549, 550 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) We held that the failure to file a worksheet does not prevent a trial court from entering a support award; rather, it prevents the noncomplying party from challenging the income figures arrived at by the trial court. Id. at 550-551.