Damian Profancik, Appellant-Respondent v. Leah Profancik, Appellee-Petitioner (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

Weissmann, Judge.

[1] Damian Profancik (Father) seeks rehearing of our January 31, 2024, opinion affirming the trial court's order on, as relevant here, Father's child support arrearage payments. We reaffirm our opinion but grant rehearing to address the arrearage's repayment schedule.

[2] Briefly recapping the relevant facts, the trial court found that Father had a child support arrearage of $260,934.83 and ordered him to repay this amount in monthly installments of $5,000. The $5,000 monthly arrears payments were in addition to Father's regular child support payments of about $2,600 a month. Father contended that his arrearage repayment schedule was an abuse of the trial court's discretion as being unduly burdensome.

[3] We acknowledge that the monthly payments are a significant amount of money. And given the size of Father's overall arrearage, any repayment schedule that attempts to be completed in a timely manner will necessarily impose a burden. That said, Father did not prove an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Our rationale for this decision is identical to that of our prior opinion: “Put plainly, Father's arguments are undercut by his refusal to enter basic financial documents into the record.” Profancik v. Profancik, No. 23A-DR-1232, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2024) (mem.). Given the evidence before the trial court, we find no fault in the court's chosen repayment schedule.¹ See Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (noting the “well-established preference in Indiana for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters” (internal quotation omitted)).

[4] We grant Profancik's petition for rehearing but re-affirm our original opinion in full.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Of course, there can be circumstances where arrears payments twice as large as the current child support payments would be excessive. But this is not such a case.

Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Kenworthy concur. Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.