Steven Eugene Archer, Appellant-Respondent, v. Doretta June Archer, Appellee-Petitioner. (2025)

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Steven Eugene Archer, Appellant-Respondent, v. Doretta June Archer, Appellee-Petitioner.

Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-DN-360

Decided: January 17, 2025

Attorney for Appellant, Jonathan A. Danks, Danks & Danks, Evansville, Indiana Attorney for Appellee, Matthew J. McGovern, Fishers, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

[1] Doretta Archer petitions for rehearing from this Court's original decision in this appeal, and Steven has filed a response. We write to confirm our original decision.

[2] Doretta argues we should apply a different standard of review and affirm the trial court. Long-standing precedent directs us to the correct standard of review, which we cited and followed in our decision. Moreover, we corrected a calculation error by relying on the trial court's findings, which were based on the evidence Doretta submitted to the court. “A petition for rehearing is not a pathway for re-litigating the case.” D.L. v. Huck, 984 N.E.2d 223, 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[3] We confirm our original opinion in all respects.

[4] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

Judge Weissmann and Senior Judge Crone concur. Weissmann, J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network