Jacob S. Fetters, Appellant-Petitioner v. Jennifer M. Fetters, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jacob Fetters (“Father”) appeals the Allen Circuit Court's order denying his petition to modify his child support obligation and finding him in contempt of the dissolution decree. Father presents two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition to modify his child support obligation.

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found him in contempt of the dissolution decree.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Father and Jennifer Fetters (“Mother”) were married and have four children together. Father and Mother divorced in March 2021. Pursuant to their settlement agreement, which the trial court approved, Mother was awarded the marital residence, and Father agreed to “transfer title to Mother through a quit claim deed and to assume, pay and indemnify Mother for the mortgage on the real estate. Further, Father was [o]rdered to refinance or satisfy the mortgage within sixty (60) days of the Decree.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 13-14. In addition, Father agreed to pay $500 per week in child support as well as an equalization payment of $100,000 payable in installments to Mother over ten years.

[4] Father was unable to refinance or satisfy the mortgage as he had agreed to do, and, in June 2022, he and Mother informally agreed that, as long as he paid the monthly mortgage payments on the marital residence, he could delay the refinancing obligation. Father initially paid child support and equalization payments as required under the decree.

[5] However, in late 2024, Father began missing child support payments, and, in April or May 2025, he stopped paying child support altogether. In July, Father stopped making mortgage payments on the marital residence and equalization payments to Mother. Accordingly, on July 25, Mother filed a motion for rule to show cause and motion for the sale of the marital residence. On July 29, Father filed a verified petition to modify child support. And, on September 16, Mother filed a second motion for rule to show cause.

[6] During a hearing on the pending motions on February 19, 2026, Father testified that his company, Mosaic Building Solutions, LLC (“Mosaic”), began experiencing financial instability in 2020. Father described various failing projects that Mosaic was involved in as well as pending litigation. Father testified that he has not had any income from Mosaic since May 2025. But Father explained that he could not leave Mosaic because there was $3 million “locked up” due to the pending lawsuits that he had to continue to pursue. Tr. p. 79. Father testified that he could work as a carpenter and earn $25 to $30 per hour. In the meantime, Father testified that his father was lending him $10,000 per month to pay his living expenses. Father also incurred debt to buy a new truck, with a monthly payment of $1,200.

[7] The trial court found and concluded in relevant part as follows:

1.12 In April of 2025, [Father's father] transferred the real estate located at 5014 Primitivo Pass, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46845 to Father at no cost. Father's home does not have a mortgage.

* * *

1.17 Father does not appear to have looked for any other employment to cover his monthly obligations, instead relying on the gifts from his father to cover his monthly obligations.

1.18 The Court finds that Father is capable of working and has no mental or physical disability that would preclude him from working and has chosen not to do so. Father instead is seeking to pursue business ventures which from the outside can only be described as failing if what Father testified to is truthful.

1.19 Father has been receiving regular and consistent financial from his father to cover his obligations and yet Father has not paid anything towards his child support or his financial obligations pursuant to the Marital Settlement Agreement since at least June of 2025.

1.20 The Court finds Father is capable of working and has chosen not to do so.

* * *

2.16 The Court finds Father is willfully unemployed or underemployed.

2.17 Father is thus found in Contempt of Court for failing to obey the Court's Orders and failed to pay his obligations towards the children's extracurricular activities, work-related childcare, uninsured medical expenses and the nonpayment of his child support obligation.

Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 15-16, 19-20. The trial court ordered Father to pay Wife: $145,791.27 (mortgage on the marital residence and missed mortgage payments made by Mother); $8,099.60 (missed equalization payments); and $9,872.37 (nonpayment of extracurricular activity fees and other child-related expenses). And the trial court denied Father's petition to modify his child support obligation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Petition to Modify Child Support

[8] Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition to modify child support. In reviewing a decision regarding a petition to modify child support, we will reverse if there is a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Meredith v. Meredith, 854 N.E.2d 942, 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). We consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses upon review. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court, including any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. The petitioner bears the burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances that justifies a modification of child support. Abouhalkah v. Sharps, 795 N.E.2d 488, 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

[9] Child support orders may be modified based on the following:

(1) upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; or

(2) upon a showing that:

(A) a party has been ordered to pay an amount in child support that differs by more than twenty percent (20%) from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines; and

(B) the order requested to be modified or revoked was issued at least twelve (12) months before the petition requesting modification was filed.

Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1.

[10] Indiana Child Support Guideline 3 defines “weekly gross income” as the “actual weekly gross income of the parent if employed to full capacity, potential income if unemployed or underemployed, and the value of in-kind benefits received by the parent.” Weekly gross income includes income from gifts. Id.

[11] Here, Father argued to the trial court that, due to his reduced employment income, there has been a substantial and continuing change in circumstances such that the terms of the child support order are unreasonable, and he believes that he has been ordered to pay an amount that differs by more than 20% from the applicable child support guideline calculation. Father presented evidence in support of that argument.

[12] However, the trial court agreed with Mother that Father is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed. The court found that Father “is or is capable of earning $10,000.00 per month based on the financial resources he has received since May of 2025.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 21. Accordingly, the trial court imputed income of $10,000 per month to Father and ordered him to continue paying $500 per week in child support.

[13] On appeal, Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that he was unemployed or underemployed without just cause and when it calculated his weekly gross income. Father maintains that he chose to continue running his company despite the lack of income not because he was trying to avoid paying child support but because of the prospects of significant future earnings. And he argues that the money he receives from his father is a loan, not a gift. Finally, Father points out that, if he left Mosaic, he could earn $25 per hour in other employment. Thus, Father maintains that the evidence only supports an imputed income of $1,000 per week.

[14] But Father's argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence. The trial court found that Father was “choosing not to work,” and the court did not believe Father that the monthly income from his father was a loan. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 19. The court found that Father was receiving $10,000 per month as a gift. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imputed that amount as income to Father. See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A)(1). And the court did not err when it denied Father's petition to modify child support.

Issue Two: Contempt

[15] Father next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it found him in contempt for his failure to pay child support and other child-related expenses. “It is soundly within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether a party is in contempt, and we review the judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.” Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 198, 202 (Ind. 2012)). “We will reverse a trial court's finding of contempt only if there is no evidence or inference therefrom to support the finding.” Id.

[16] As our Supreme Court explained in Witt,

[c]rucial to the determination of contempt is the evaluation of a person's state of mind, that is, whether the alleged contemptuous conduct was done willfully. [City of Gary v. Major, 822 N.E.2d 165, 170 (Ind. 2005)] (“In order to be held in contempt for failure to follow the court's order, a party must have willfully disobeyed the court order.”); In re Perrello, 260 Ind. 26, 29, 291 N.E.2d 698, 700 (1973) (“The willful disobedience of a court order can constitute indirect ․ contempt. However, the act must be done willfully and with the intent to show disrespect or defiance.” (citations omitted)); Meyer v. Wolvos, 707 N.E.2d 1029, 1031 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (“When a person fails to abide by a court's order, that person bears the burden of showing that the violation was not willful.”). The determination of whether to find a party in contempt permits the trial court to consider matters which may not, in fact cannot, be reflected in the written record. The trial court possesses unique knowledge of the parties before it and is in the best position to determine how to maintain its “authority, justice, and dignity” and whether a party's disobedience of the order was done willfully.

964 N.E.2d 198, 202-03 (Ind. 2012).

[17] Father argues that the undisputed evidence shows that, due to Mosaic's financial difficulties, he has received “no income since May of 2025.” Appellant's Br. at 16. Father maintains that he was only able to pay his own living expenses by taking loans from his father. Once again, Father's argument is a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do on appeal.

[18] Again, the trial court found that Father had received gifts of $10,000 per month since May 2025. And the court found that Father was capable of paying child support and other court-ordered expenses but chose not to. Indeed, Father testified that, since May 2025, he has taken vacations and he took out a loan on a new SUV with payments of $1,219 per month. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Father in contempt of the decree.

[19] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.