BURNS v. DILLBACK (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Winter Burns (“Mother”) appeals the trial court's calculation of a child support arrearage owed by Christopher Dillback (“Father”). Mother argues that the trial court clearly erred when it calculated Father's child support arrearage. We conclude, however, that the trial court's calculation is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Mother raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court's child support arrearage calculation was clearly erroneous.

Facts

[3] In June 2006, the State of Indiana, by the Vanderburgh County Title IV-D prosecutor, brought this paternity action against Father regarding S.D., the child of Father and Mother. Father admitted paternity of S.D., and the trial court established custody, child support, and parenting time. On several occasions over the years, the trial court has determined Father's child support arrearage. The trial court last calculated Father's child support arrearage on September 26, 2017, and determined that Father owed $15,120.75 as of September 25, 2017. Mother did not appeal that decision.

[4] S.D. was emancipated on June 26, 2023. On January 9, 2025, the State filed a motion to reduce Father's child support arrearage to a judgment. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 10, 2025. The State argued that, based upon the previous arrearage of $15,120.75 as of September 25, 2017, Father's current arrearage was $4,481.99 as of June 9, 2025. Father agreed with the State's child support arrearage calculation. Mother, however, argued that: (1) between June 15, 2006, and S.D.’s June 2023 emancipation, Father's total child support owed was $37,680; (2) Father had paid $26,913.95; and (3) Father's current child support arrearage was $10,766.05.

[5] On July 8, 2025, the trial court found that, as of June 9, 2025, Father owed a child support arrearage of $4,481.99. The trial court ordered Father to pay $25 per week until the arrearage was paid in full. Mother now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Mother appeals the trial court's calculation of Father's child support arrearage. “ ‘[A] trial court's calculation of child support is presumptively valid.’ ” Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 738 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2008)). We will set aside the order only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. Clear error is an error that “leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Masters v. Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570, 575 (Ind. 2015).

[7] Here, the State presented evidence that the trial court calculated Father's arrearage at $15,120.75 as of September 25, 2017. There are 300 weeks between September 25, 2017, and S.D.’s emancipation on June 26, 2023. Father owed $40 per week during this time period, leaving child support owed of $12,000. During this same period, Father paid a total of $22,638.76 toward child support and the arrearage, leaving $4,481.99 due. Mother, however, calculates that Father owes an arrearage of $10,766.05.

[8] The dispute between the State's arrearage calculation and Mother's arrearage calculation seems to center around the trial court's September 2017 arrearage calculation, which Mother contends was incorrect. Mother, however, did not appeal the September 2017 order. “Res judicata ․ aims to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding against both the original parties and their privies.” Becker v. State, 992 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. 2013). Given res judicata and Mother's failure to appeal the September 2017 order, she is bound by it. See id. at 701 (holding that “the 2008 Order—and the failure to appeal from it—are binding against the DOC”). Accordingly, Mother's challenge to the September 2017 order is untimely. Under these circumstances, Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's child support arrearage calculation is clearly erroneous.

Conclusion

[9] Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's child support arrearage calculation is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

[10] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Bailey, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.