HUHN v. HUHN (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Michael Richard Huhn (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's order on discovery sanctions that he pay $1,050 in attorney fees. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Husband and Kim L. Huhn (“Wife”) married in 1975. Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May 2003. In November 2003, the parties signed a mediation agreement that would be incorporated into their marital settlement agreement. Per the mediation agreement, Wife was to retain a “50% interest in the accumulated interest at separation in Husband's G[eneral] M[otors] Pension Plan with survivor benefits,” and Husband's counsel was responsible for drafting a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”). Huhn v. Huhn, No. 22A-DR-2761, 2023 WL 5200781, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2023) (“Huhn I”), trans. denied. In January 2004, the trial court issued a decree of dissolution which approved of the marital settlement agreement and a supplemental marital settlement agreement. In May 2007, Husband's attorney forwarded a certified copy of an amended QDRO to Fidelity Investments, which reviewed QDROs on behalf of General Motors (“GM”). GM Benefits & Services Center sent a letter dated June 4, 2007, to Husband's counsel confirming the terms of the QDRO.

[3] In April 2022, Husband filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 60 requesting that the court set aside the amended QDRO from 2007 “owing to a material substantive mistake made in the order to the extent it is inconsistent with and in material contradiction of the Decree of Dissolution.” Id. at *3. After a hearing, the court denied Husband's motion. Husband filed a motion to correct error, which the court denied. Husband appealed, and this Court affirmed the denial of his motion for relief from judgment and motion to correct error. See id. at *6.

[4] On January 24, 2024, Wife filed a request for appellate attorney fees under Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1 seeking an award of $10,671 in connection with the appeal in Huhn I.¹ The court set a hearing for March 21, 2024. On February 19, 2024, Wife filed a Notice of Service of Discovery stating that she had served Husband with a request for production of documents.² On March 21, 2024, the court issued an order stating that it held a hearing at which Wife moved for a continuance because Husband had not answered her request for discovery and resetting the hearing for May 15, 2024. On April 5, 2024, Wife filed a Motion to Compel stating that Husband had failed to respond to her request for production of documents.

[5] On April 8, 2024, the court issued an “Order Compelling Discovery” which ordered Husband to respond to Wife's request for production of documents “within ten (10) days ․ or suffer sanctions as may be imposed pursuant to Trial Rule 37(B).” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 112. On April 18, 2024, Husband filed a motion to reconsider the Order Compelling Discovery, and the court denied the motion the next day. Husband tendered responses to Wife's request for production of documents, objecting to Request Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis the requests were overly broad, stating “[w]ithout waiving its objection, see documentation produced herewith” with respect to Request No. 1, and objecting to Request No. 3 on the basis that the term “Earnings Statement” is ambiguous.³ Appellee's Appendix Volume II at 8.

[6] On April 29, 2024, Wife filed a motion requesting that the court continue the hearing set for May 15, 2024, set a hearing on the discovery matter and to consider imposing sanctions on Husband for failing to respond to her discovery request, and order Husband to pay her attorney fees. The Court set Wife's motion regarding the discovery dispute for hearing on May 15, 2024, and a hearing on the matter of appellate attorney fees for July 25, 2024.

[7] On May 21, 2024, the court issued an Order stating that it held a hearing on May 15, 2024, on the issue of Wife's April 29, 2024 motion for sanctions.⁴ The court noted that it had entered its Order Compelling Discovery on April 8, 2024, which specifically required Husband to respond to Wife's request for production of documents within ten days. The court found:

8. It wasn't until May 13, 2024, two days before the scheduled hearing on [Wife's] Motion for Sanctions, that [Husband] supplemented his responses to [Wife's] Request for Production of Documents. Counsel for [Wife] has indicated that [Husband's] Schedule A for his 2023 1040-SR still has not been produced.[5]

9. [Husband's counsel] indicated at [the] hearing that he believes what [Husband] has provided in response to [Wife's] Request for Production of Documents is sufficient. However, that is not what was required of [Husband].

10. The Court finds that [Husband's] Counsels’ interpretation of compliance is not consistent with the request made and the Court's April 8, 2024 Order compelling [Husband] to respond to [Wife's] Request for Production of Documents.

11. Accordingly, the Court finds that [Husband] failed to comply with the Court's April 8, 2024 Order Compelling Discovery.

12. [Husband] still has the obligation to provide all the documents requested by [Wife] in her Request for Production of Documents from February 19, 2024.

* * * * *

14. [Wife] requested attorney fees in the amount of $2,304.00 as it relates to the motion. The Court finds that based on [Husband's] continued non-compliance with [Wife's] Discovery Requests and pursuant to Trial Rule 37(B)(2), it is appropriate to award [Wife] $1,250.00 in attorney fees associated with prosecuting this action.

Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 121-122.

[8] On June 11, 2024, Wife filed a “Second Motion for Sanctions.” Id. at 123. Wife alleged that her counsel sent an email to Husband's counsel on May 25, 2024, inquiring when he could expect the requested documents and that, receiving no response, Wife's counsel called Husband's counsel on the phone on June 7, 2024, during which call Husband's counsel agreed to respond to the request by the close of business on June 10, 2024, and Wife's counsel stated that he would file a discovery motion on June 11, 2024, if the documents were not produced. Wife indicated that her counsel did not receive the requested documents. She alleged that she incurred attorney fees “to bring this subsequent motion for sanctions before the Court in the approximate amount of $1,050.00.” Id. at 124.

[9] On July 3, 2024, Husband filed a response stating that, on April 18, 2024, he served Wife with his response to her request for production of documents “which included objections and attached [Husband's] 2023 W-2” and that on May 13, 2024, he supplemented his responses. Id. at 133. Husband stated that he “did respond to [Wife's] request by the close of business on June 10, 2024,” and attached a letter dated June 10, 2024. Id. at 134. He argued that, “[a]s stated in the June 10, 2024 correspondence, the financial information sought by [Wife] presumably is to demonstrate that [Husband] is in a superior financial position and/or is able to pay the attorney's fees incurred by [Wife].” Id. The attached letter by Husband's counsel addressed to Wife's counsel dated June 10, 2024, stated in part:

[W]e are willing, with no strings attached, to stipulate that [Husband] is in a superior financial position to [Wife] and that [Husband] can pay the attorney's fees that [Wife] incurred on appeal, if that is a relevant consideration. Since we have stipulated to the ultimate fact in issue, at least as it pertains to anything financial, discovery on those topics is moot and is no longer relevant. If [Husband] stipulates that he is in a superior financial position and that he can pay, how are his tax returns relevant?

Id. at 138.

[10] On July 11, 2024, Wife filed a reply arguing that the court had found that Husband failed to comply with its April 8, 2024 order and that, since May 15, 2024, Husband had not produced any additional documents responsive to her request for production of documents.

[11] On July 25, 2024, the court held a hearing on Wife's Second Motion for Sanctions at which it admitted attorney fee affidavits. Husband's counsel argued that Husband agreed he is “in a superior financial condition” and “has the ability to pay” and that “everything you were trying to prove with this information, I will agree to. So you don't need it anymore. I have agreed to what you are trying to prove.” Transcript Volume II at 9. He argued “[t]his information is not relevant anymore. We've conceded the ultimate issue that he's trying to prove.” Id. at 12. Wife's counsel argued that Husband acknowledged that he had not provided the requested information and had not followed the court's order. He argued that the relevancy of the information was a question for another day and asked the court to consider progressive discipline. He argued the information requested was the “type of information you would expect to see in a final hearing in this matter.” Id. at 14. He asserted “we wanted the complete tax return and they have failed and refused and been uncooperative the entire time.” Id. at 14-15. He argued the discovery could lead to admissible information. The court took the matter under advisement.

[12] On August 13, 2024, the trial court issued an “Order on [Wife's] Second Motion for Sanctions” in which it found that Wife “incurred attorney fees in the approximate amount $1,520.00 as it relates to the Second Motion for Sanctions” and that, “based on [Husband's] continued non-compliance with [Wife's] Discovery Requests, it is appropriate to award [her] $1,050.00 in attorney fees associated with prosecuting this action.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 19-20. The order also stated “the ultimate issue of appellate attorney fees is scheduled for hearing on October 8, 2024[.]” Id. at 20-21.

Discussion

[13] Husband appeals the trial court's August 13, 2024 order. He asserts “[t]he only live issue underpinning Wife's need and request for Discovery is her Motion for Fees seeking an award of fees under Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1 in relation to her defense of Huhn I,” the “crucial factor in determining whether to award attorney's fees under Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1 is whether one party is in a superior position to pay fees over the other party,” and he “stipulated and agreed that he was in a superior financial position to Wife and had the ability to pay attorney's fees as within the meaning of Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1.” Appellant's Brief at 15 (citations and quotations omitted). He argues his “concession on the issue operated as a white flag surrender and is controlling in the case” and his “stipulation obviated the only legitimate bases for Wife's Discovery and inquiry into [his] finances and financial condition.” Id. at 18. He argues, “[b]ased upon [his] stipulation and concession of the ultimate issue, as a pure matter of law, persons standing in [his] shoes could reasonably conclude that a genuine issue existed as to whether [he] still remained bound to comply with the Discovery.” Id. at 20.

[14] Wife maintains the court did not abuse its discretion in granting her Second Motion for Sanctions. She argues the August 13, 2024 order “relates to a Motion for Sanctions for failing to comply with a previous Court Order compelling discovery for the second time” and “Husband is not appealing the previous two Court Orders compelling discovery.” Appellee's Brief at 8. She contends, “[n]evertheless, the information sought by [her] is relevant,” id., and argues:

Husband argues that the only possible purpose of requesting financial information of Husband is to establish whether Husband is in a superior financial condition to Wife. This is not accurate․ [A]n argument for an award of attorney fees is not only about a party's superior financial position. There are other purposes to requesting financial documents, such as, obtaining information on a party's resources, ability to engage in gainful employment, the disparity of the parties’ earnings, collection, etc․ Here, the documents requested are within the scope of discovery and the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Husband to respond to them.

Id. at 10. Wife maintains, “throughout his brief, Husband argues that there was a ‘stipulation’ as to a superior financial position,” “[y]et, at no time did [her] counsel stipulate to this point,” and she “has the right to present her own evidence when requesting an award of appellate attorney fees.” Id. at 11. She argues “Husband had two opportunities to comply without sanctions, but chose not to” and “[t]he sanction of attorney fees was justified.” Id. at 12-13.

[15] Ind. Trial Rule 26(B) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject-matter involved in the pending action” and “[i]t is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Trial Rule 37(B) addresses sanctions and provides the court “shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”

[16] The trial court has the duty to manage and control the proceedings before it. Garcia v. State, 517 N.E.2d 402, 405 (Ind. 1988). Trial courts exercise broad discretion in making discovery rulings. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp. v. ACS Human Servs., LLC, 999 N.E.2d 880, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Discretion is a privilege afforded a trial court to act in accord with what is fair and equitable in each case. Id. An appellate court will interfere only when the appealing party can show an abuse of that discretion. Id. Because of the fact-sensitive nature of discovery issues, a court's ruling is given a strong presumption of correctness. Id. This presumption extends to its determinations with respect to violations of discovery orders and attendant sanctions, which should not be overturned absent clear error and resulting prejudice. Id.

[17] Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1(a) provides:

The court periodically may order a party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this article and for attorney's fees and mediation services, including amounts for legal services provided and costs incurred before the commencement of the proceedings or after entry of judgment.

[18] Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1 allows trial courts to award appellate attorney fees in dissolution proceedings. Bousum v. Bousum, 173 N.E.3d 289, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). To determine whether to award statutorily allowed appellate attorney fees, a trial court generally considers the financial circumstances of the parties, including their resources, economic condition, and ability to engage in gainful employment. Id. The trial court may also consider any other factors that bear on the reasonableness of awarding attorney fees. Id. A party's misconduct that directly results in additional litigation expenses may also be considered. Id. “Consideration of these factors promotes the legislative purpose behind the award of attorney's fees—to ensure that a party who would not otherwise be able to afford an attorney is able to retain representation.” Id. (citation omitted). “When one party is in a superior position to pay fees over the other party, an award is proper.” Id. (citation omitted).

[19] The record reveals that, on April 5, 2024, Wife filed a motion to compel Husband to respond to her request for production of documents and, on April 8, 2024, the court issued an Order Compelling Discovery which ordered Husband to respond to Wife's request within ten days or suffer sanctions as may be imposed pursuant to Trial Rule 37(B). Husband filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. Wife filed a motion on April 29, 2024, requesting that the court consider imposing sanctions on Husband for failing to respond to her discovery request. The court issued an order on May 21, 2024, specifically finding that “[Husband's] Counsels’ interpretation of compliance is not consistent with the request made and the Court's April 8, 2024 Order” and that Husband “still has the obligation to provide all the documents requested by [Wife] in her Request for Production of Documents from February 19, 2024.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 121. Husband does not assert that the trial court modified or rescinded its April 8 or May 21, 2024 orders.

[20] Wife filed a Second Motion for Sanctions on June 11, 2024, and Husband filed a response arguing that his stipulation that he is in a superior financial position “negates the need for further discovery” and “there is no further need for an award of attorney fees.” Id. at 136. Following a hearing, the trial court found that, “[n]otwithstanding the Court's orders, [Husband] has once again failed to obey an order to provide discovery.” Id. at 20. The court thus rejected Husband's assertion that his “stipulation” that he is in a superior financial position relieved him of his obligation to comply with the court's discovery orders.

[21] Further, we note that, while Husband acknowledges that he is in a superior position relative to Wife to pay fees, the court may consider other factors in determining the reasonableness of an award of appellate attorney fees and the amount of such an award pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1, and Wife may present evidence regarding those factors. Those factors include the parties’ relative resources, assets, incomes, earning abilities, and employment, any misconduct which resulted in additional litigation expenses, and other factors which bear on the reasonableness of the award. See Small v. Small, 243 N.E.3d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (trial court may order a party in a dissolution proceeding to pay a reasonable portion of the other party's attorney fees after considering the parties’ resources, economic condition, ability to engage in gainful employment and earn income, and other factors bearing on the reasonableness of the award). Wife presented an attorney fee affidavit which included an itemization of services provided by her counsel in representing her in connection with her Second Motion for Sanctions and a total fee amount of $1,520, and the trial court found that, based on Husband's continued noncompliance with the discovery request, it was appropriate to award her $1,050 in attorney fees. In light of the record, we find no abuse of discretion and no clear error.

[22] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 31-15-10-1(a) provides:The court periodically may order a party to pay a reasonable amount for the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this article and for attorney's fees and mediation services, including amounts for legal services provided and costs incurred before the commencement of the proceedings or after entry of judgment.

2.   Wife's request for production of documents stated:REQUEST NO. 1: Documentation of all wages, commissions, bonuses, draws, compensation of any other nature, unemployment or workers’ compensation benefits, or disability benefits paid to you by any employer, any federal, state, or local governmental agency, or from any other source, including but not limited to paycheck stubs, automatic deposit receipts, and W2s from January 1, 2023, to the present.* * * * *REQUEST NO. 2: State and Federal income tax returns with all attachments and amendments thereto for the last two (2) tax years including all schedules, W-2s, 1099s, K-1 statements, 1065 Forms (Partnership Returns), 1120 Forms (Corporate Returns), all 500 Series Forms (Pension Returns) and any trust returns.* * * * *REQUEST NO. 3: Copies of your last ten (10) Earnings Statement[s].Appellee's Appendix Volume II at 2.

3.   In its August 13, 2024 order, the trial court states that Husband's response to Wife's request for production of documents “provided objections to each the three requests and provided only one attachment, [Husband's] 2023 W-2.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 19.

4.   Husband did not request and the record does not contain a transcript of the May 15, 2024 hearing.

5.   In her appellee's brief, Wife states “On May 13, 2024, ․ Husband supplemented his responses to Wife's Request for Production of Documents, which was missing Husband's Schedule A for his 2023 1040-SR.” Appellee's Brief at 5 (citing Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 119). The page in the appellant's appendix to which Wife cites does not mention Schedule A to Husband's tax return.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.