Are You or Your Clients Incurring Liability for Your Children Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)?

By Richard Mann, Richard A. Mann, P.C., Indianapolis

One of the issues the new proposals to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines attempt to address are new requirements of the ACA. The ACA requirements actually have existed for tax years 2014 and after. In drafting custody and support agreements, parties should address tax exemptions, health insurance coverage for children and uninsured medical. Under the ACA if one party is to carry health insurance on the child and the other party claims the exemption, the party who claims the exemption can be penalized and for each month in which there is not insurance coverage for the child which meets the requirements of the ACA. Many orders contain language that Party X must maintain insurance if the insurance if available at a reasonable cost through their employer and is reasonable accessible to the child. The ACA does not limit the coverage to that reasonably available through the employer. The ACA requires the party to obtain private insurance, insurance through the Healthcare Exchange or one of the taxpayer subsidized plans. One place to start to look as to whether a person is required to carry the insurance even if not required by the order they should look here. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Am-I-required-to-make-an-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Payment%3F

Your client should also look here for additional information. http://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Individuals-and-Families/ACA-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision-Calculating-the-Payment

To see the penalties for not having coverage look here. https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/fee-for-not-being-covered/

________________________________________________________________________

Richard A. Mann has been practicing Family Law for more than 36 years in the Indianapolis area and throughout the State of Indiana. He is a Certified Family Law Specialist as certified by the Family Law Certification Committee, a Registered Family Law and Civil Law Mediator and Guardian ad Litem and Parenting Coordinator. Mr. Mann and his firm, Richard A. Mann, P.C. Attorneys at Law, are proud to have been one of the firms who represented Same-Sex couples who were successful in overturning Indiana’s ban on Same-Sex marriage. He continues to fight discrimination in the law.

While a large portion of Mr. Mann’s practice is in the Family Law area he also represents several corporations on contract, personnel and other matters. He also has a varied General Practice in wills, estates, juvenile matters, collections, probate throughout the state of Indiana. Mr. Mann has tried murder cases as well as a death penalty case.

Mr. Mann has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers SuperLawyers Edition for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Follow Richard Mann on FacebookTwitter, or read more blogs by him here.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

New Indiana e-File Rules Put More Responsibility on Filers

By Richard Mann, Richard A. Mann, P.C., Indianapolis

Effective July 1, 2016, the Indiana Supreme and Appellate Courts along with Hamilton County, Indiana Circuit and Superior Courts, go to mandatory e-filing for attorneys. Trial court filers should familiarize themselves with the new Rule 86 of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure effective for filings after June 30, 2016.

At the trial court level, attorneys now will need a few more forms in their bank of forms. The new rule now calls for 4 additional forms. The first form identified is the Acknowledgement of Service under Rule 86(G)(2)(ii) which is similar to the form used in the US District Courts. This occurs if the filer personally serves the complaint and summons or mails the summons and complaint by first class mail. The filer prepares the summons and transmits the summons to the clerk. The clerk will then stamp, add the cause number, seal, and sign the summons and return it to the filer. The rule requires the filer to file the Acknowledgement of Service with the clerk. If the respondent or defendant refuses to sign the form, the filer shall then immediately file an Affidavit of Service with the clerk. If the filer files by copy service, the filer shall leave a copy at the proper address, mail a copy of the summons and file with the clerk the Affidavit of Service, similar to the method used by a sheriff in copy service.

Also, under Rule 86, now if the filer is serving the respondent or defendant by certified or registered mail, the filer prepares the summons and transmits the summons to the clerk. The clerk will then stamp, add the cause number, seal, and sign the summons and return it to the filer. The filer will then send the summons by certified or registered mail, and then promptly file with the clerk the Certificate of Issuance of Summons which must contain the method of service with respect to each party, the date of mailing, address of each party, and tracking or identifying number for each summons under Rule 86(G)(2)(c). Once service has occurred then the filer must file with the clerk an Affidavit of Service setting forth the date of service, the person served, and the address served. Since the name may not be legible on the receipt from the post office, we believe the best practice until directed otherwise would be to attach a copy of the receipt.

For service by publication under Rule 86(G)(2)(e), the filer prepares the summons and transmits the summons to the clerk along with an Affidavit for Service by Publication to the Clerk as provided in Trial Rule 4.13. The clerk will then stamp, add the cause number, seal, and sign the summons and Affidavit for Service by Publication and then return them to the filer. The filer shall deliver the summons to the publication authorized by Trial Rule 4.13(C), with instructions that after the completion of the period of publication the return shall be sent to the Clerk.

Another form you should add is the new E-Filing Appearance By Attorney In Civil Case. This has many changes.

________________________________________________________________________

Richard A. Mann has been practicing Family Law for more than 36 years in the Indianapolis area and throughout the State of Indiana. He is a Certified Family Law Specialist as certified by the Family Law Certification Committee, a Registered Family Law and Civil Law Mediator and Guardian ad Litem and Parenting Coordinator. Mr. Mann and his firm, Richard A. Mann, P.C. Attorneys at Law, are proud to have been one of the firms who represented Same-Sex couples who were successful in overturning Indiana’s ban on Same-Sex marriage. He continues to fight discrimination in the law.

While a large portion of Mr. Mann’s practice is in the Family Law area he also represents several corporations on contract, personnel and other matters. He also has a varied General Practice in wills, estates, juvenile matters, collections, probate throughout the state of Indiana. Mr. Mann has tried murder cases as well as a death penalty case.

Mr. Mann has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers SuperLawyers Edition for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Follow Richard Mann on FacebookTwitter, or read more blogs by him here.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

Postsecondary Education Expense Statute Does NOT Permit an Award for Graduate or Professional School Expenses

Case: Case: David P. Allen v. Kimberly W. Allen
by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham Greenebaum Doll

HELD: Indiana Supreme Court holds that Indiana’s postsecondary educational expense statute does not permit an award for graduate or professional school expenses.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Father and Mother divorced in 2002. A subsequent 2010 agreed entry provided for an allocation between the parents of Daughter’s undergraduate educational expenses and health insurance.

In 2013, shortly before Daughter’s 21st birthday, when Daughter was a senior at IU, Father filed a petition to modify seeking orders regarding Daughter’s graduate school expenses. At subsequent hearings, it was determined that Daughter had been accepted into the IU dental school, which costs approximately $75,000 per year. The trial court found that both of the parents had significant resources, and then ordered the same apportionment of expenses that was set forth in the prior undergraduate order to continue for Daughter’s dental school.

The Court of Appeals rejected Mother’s argument that the trial court lacked the authority to issue a graduate school expense order. Mother then sought transfer, which was granted.

The Indiana Supreme Court noted that the interpretation of the term “postsecondary” was a matter of first impression, and that the term is not defined in the postsecondary educational expense statute. The Court took interest in the fact that other areas of the Indiana Code define the term, and limit its application to undergraduate matters. The Court also noted that the requirement that a petition for postsecondary expenses be filed when the child is of an age well short of graduate or professional school would seem to suggest that only undergraduate expenses were contemplated. Finally, the Court observed that Indiana’s statute allowing for any type of college expense order is unusual on the national level, and further permitting graduate or professional school expense orders would “put Indiana in the minority of the minority” on the issue.

The Court advised in a footnote that a “postsecondary” expense order may properly apply to a trade school or associate’s degree, not only to baccalaureate degrees.

The trial court’s graduate school expense order was reversed.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: David P. Allen v. Kimberly W. Allen

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

James A. Reed and Michael R. Kohlhaas of Bingham Greenebaum Doll represent clients in a wide spectrum of relationship transition and wealth planning matters, including premarital agreements, estate planning, cohabitation, separation, divorce (especially involving high net worth individuals and/or complex asset issues), custody, parenting arrangements, adoption, and domestic partnerships. Bingham Greenebaum Doll, a multidisciplinary law firm serving regional, national, and international clients, is the fourth-largest law firm in Indiana. The firm’s main practices include corporate, property, litigation, labor, government law, and personal services law. Visit the firm’s website at www.bgdlegal.com.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Family Law Case Review, News0 Comments

It is Graduation Time, What Next?

By Richard Mann, Richard A. Mann, P.C., Indianapolis

Do You have a Child of Divorce or Paternity Graduating High School, Turning 19 or Planning on Post Secondary Education?

In 2012 Indiana law underwent a significant change regarding the children of divorced or never married parents.  I.C. 31-16-6-6 was changed to make the age of emancipation for child support 19 instead of the previous 21.  As a result of this change, the child support duty terminates automatically at age 19.  While the duty terminates, if the support is being withheld from one (1) parent’s wages then a court order is necessary to terminate the support.  If there was more than one (1)  child covered by the child support order, it does not change or end the support order unless it is changed by the court (or if they are twins, triplets etc.).  Also, if the child is 18 and is not enrolled in school for 4 months and is capable of supporting him or herself, the child may be emancipated by court order.  Before you run off to file to get the support changed, you should make sure that the change is in your favor.  I have seen numerous times where a person goes to change support thinking it will go down and it goes up, or vice versa.  If you are the party receiving support you might say why would I stop it?  First, because it is not due to you, and secondly, you might have to pay it back.  See Matson v. Matson, 569 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).  However, if you are paying it and do not file to stop the payment or overpayment believing you will get it back, most cases are against you.  See Eisenhut v. Eisenhut, 994 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) where the court refused to order the repayment of $19,250 which was a result of a voluntary wage assignment.  The best practice is to seek out legal advice from a lawyer who regularly practices family law months before the date is to occur.

Another issue affected by the change in the law is post-secondary education expenses.  Post-secondary education includes college, trade school etc.  Is your child going?  If you are divorced or under a paternity decree, then what does that order say?  The law provided for a grandfather clause for decrees before the effective date of the law, i.e. before July 1, 2012.  The problem is if there is no provision for post-secondary education and your support order has been modified since July 1, 2012, the grandfather clause may no longer apply. See Neal v. Austin, 20 N.E.3d 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).  If your child turns 19 before you file, you may not be able to look to your child’s other parent for contribution.  Putting these matters off until after graduation and prom may end up costing you a lot more than graduation or prom.  If you are the parent who may have to pay the majority of the costs and do not want to be court ordered to contribute, then you should still seek out legal advice but not raise the issue with you ex-spouse until after you have obtained that advice.  The Indiana Child Support Guidelines were also modified effective January 1, 2016.  They too can significantly affect the contribution a parent may be ordered to make toward post-secondary education.

As in all legal matters, the individual facts may have a significant part of what occurs.

________________________________________________________________________

Richard A. Mann has been practicing Family Law for more than 36 years in the Indianapolis area and throughout the State of Indiana. He is a Certified Family Law Specialist as certified by the Family Law Certification Committee, a Registered Family Law and Civil Law Mediator and Guardian ad Litem and Parenting Coordinator. Mr. Mann and his firm, Richard A. Mann, P.C. Attorneys at Law, are proud to have been one of the firms who represented Same-Sex couples who were successful in overturning Indiana’s ban on Same-Sex marriage. He continues to fight discrimination in the law.

While a large portion of Mr. Mann’s practice is in the Family Law area he also represents several corporations on contract, personnel and other matters. He also has a varied General Practice in wills, estates, juvenile matters, collections, probate throughout the state of Indiana. Mr. Mann has tried murder cases as well as a death penalty case.

Mr. Mann has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers SuperLawyers Edition for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Follow Richard Mann on Facebook, Twitter, or read more blogs by him here.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, News0 Comments

Having trouble logging in?Visit our Support section.

Subscribe

Contact Us

ICLEF
230 East Ohio Street
Suite #300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: 317-637-9102
Fax: 317-633-8780
E-mail: iclef@iclef.org