Opinion
No. 45A04–1307–DR–351.
2014-04-14
In re the Marriage of Annette M. HUSEMAN, f/k/a Annette M. Mantis, Appellant, v. Angelo N. MANTIS, Appellee.
As to Mother's contention that the trial court's interpretation is an improper retroactive modification of the support provision, I disagree. The trial court's order does not modify the provision, it simply applies it as the trial court found it was intended to be applied. That the provision references Father's particular employer and the particular year limits its effectiveness to those particular circumstances and the onus was on Mother to avail herself of the opportunity to revisit child support when those circumstances changed. In short, I believe the trial court's interpretation of Paragraph 2.B is supported by the facts and is not clearly erroneous, and I would affirm the trial court's order in its entirety.