If You Are A Higher Income Earner Or Reside In A State With High Costs Of Living, And Have An Indiana Based Child Support Order, You May Need To Review Your Child Support

Child support disputes can be complex, especially when one parent’s income involves self-employment, fluctuating earnings, cost of living, or significant deductions. The Indiana Court of Appeals case Shane Wierks v. Heather (Corey) Mazellan, 171 N.E.3^rd 636 (Ind. Ct App., 2021) provides a fascinating look into how courts navigate these complexities under the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. This case, decided on May 14, 2021, highlights key issues such as income calculation, cost-of-living adjustments, and income withholding orders. Below, we will break down the case, explore its implications, and provide resources for further understanding.

Case Background

Shane Wierks (Father) and Heather Mazellan (Mother) share a child born in 2007. Father, a successful commercial real estate broker and property owner in New Jersey, had been paying $94 per week in child support since 2010. Mother, living in Indiana with her current husband and two subsequent children, sought a modification in 2020 due to a substantial change in circumstances. The trial court increased Father’s obligation to $672.08 per week, prompting his appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and remanded the case for recalculation.

Key Issues and Rulings

1. FICA Tax Deductions for Self-Employed Parents

– Issue: Father argued the trial court failed to deduct half of his Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes from his self-employment income, as allowed under Indiana Child Support Guideline 3(A)(2).

– Ruling: The court agreed this was an error. Self-employed individuals pay FICA at 15.3%, double the 7.65% rate for employees, so half of this payment should be deducted from weekly gross income.

– Takeaway: Courts must adjust income calculations to reflect the higher tax burden on self-employed parents.

– Resource: Indiana Child Support Guidelines(https://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/child_support/) – See Guideline 3(A)(2) for details on income calculations.

2. Depreciation Deductions

– Issue: Father took significant depreciation deductions ($49,715 in 2017 and $89,414 in 2018) on his commercial rental properties, which the trial court added back to his income entirely.

– Ruling: The appellate court upheld this, noting Father did not distinguish between types of depreciation (e.g., straight-line vs. accelerated) at trial or argue they were necessary expenses for producing income. His testimony that the properties were long-term investments supported adding them back.

– Takeaway: Depreciation is not automatically deductible for child support; it must be tied to “ordinary and necessary expenses” for income production.  This is generally how it is held, however, there is case law in Indiana where under special circumstances the depreciation can be deducted.  See Glass v. Oeder, 713 N.E.2d 413 (Ind., 1999).

– Resource:

1. 1. Indiana Child Support Guidelines(https://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/child_support/) – See Guideline 3(A)(2) for details on income calculations.
   2. IRS Publication 946 – How to Depreciate Property(https://www.irs.gov/publications/p946) explains depreciation types, though child support guidelines differ from tax rules.
   3. Child Support Guideline 1 Commentary(https://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/child_support/) – Explains flexibility in tax adjustments.
   4. Indiana Code § 31-16-15-0.5 – Details income withholding rules. Explains depreciation types, though child support guidelines differ from tax rules.

3. Actual Tax Rates vs. Guideline Assumptions

– Issue: The guidelines assume a 21.88% tax rate, but Father paid 38.47% (29.5% federal + 8.97% New Jersey state). He sought an adjustment, which the trial court ignored.  Also see Bojarb v. Bojarb., While there was transfer granted on this case, it was not granted on the tax effect in child support.

– Ruling: In Wierks, the court remanded this issue, requiring the trial court to consider Father’s higher tax rate and decide if an adjustment is warranted.

– Takeaway: Courts have discretion to deviate from the assumed tax rate when evidence shows a significant difference.

– Resource: [Child Support Guideline 1 Commentary](https://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/child_support/) – Explains flexibility in tax adjustments.

4. Retirement Contributions

– Issue: Father’s voluntary retirement contributions ($54,000 in 2017, $55,000 in 2018) were added back to his income, despite tax benefits and no intent to hide income.

– Ruling: The court upheld this, emphasizing that voluntary contributions, unlike mandatory ones, do not reduce gross income for child support purposes.

– Takeaway: Parents cannot lower child support by choosing to save for retirement, aligning with the “total income approach.”

5. Cost-of-Living Differences

– Issue: Father argued his higher cost of living in New Jersey (20-24% more than Indiana) justified a downward adjustment, supported by online calculators and testimony.

– Ruling: The trial court’s refusal to adjust was deemed “clearly erroneous” since the evidence was undisputed, and Father had always lived in New Jersey.

– Takeaway: Courts must consider significant, non-speculative cost-of-living disparities.

– Resource:

1. 1. BestPlaces.net Cost of Living Calculator(https://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/) – Compare living costs across regions.
   2. Another resource of arguing cost of living is the Federal Pay Scale https://www.federalpay.org/gs/2025#google_vignette

-It must be noted that Mother did not object to Father’s evidence regarding the cost-of-living difference.

– Another issue may be raised if a party moves to a different state while under a current support order.  Here, the court emphasized that Father was a lifelong resident of New Jersey. This may give a court an out to argue against considering the cost of living in the event someone under a support order moves, like to follow a new significant other or some other reason.

6. Income Withholding Order

– Issue: Father, an independent contractor, contested an income withholding order (IWO) applied to his brokerage firm earnings.

– Ruling: The court affirmed the IWO under Indiana Code § 31-16-15-0.5, as the firm owed him income, and he didn’t seek a statutory exception.

– Resource: Indiana Code § 31-16-15-0.5(https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2021/ic/titles/31-16-15-0.5) – Details income withholding rules.

Implications for Parents and Practitioners

This case underscores the flexibility and discretion courts have under the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, balanced against the need for evidence-based adjustments. For self-employed parents, meticulous documentation of income, expenses, and lifestyle factors is crucial. For custodial parents, understanding how deductions are scrutinized can strengthen a modification request.

The remand for recalculation highlights that child support is not a one-size-fits-all formula—courts must tailor orders to the “logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.”  Wierks, supra.  This case also reflects broader economic realities, like regional cost differences.

Conclusion

Wierks v. Mazellan offers valuable lessons on navigating child support modifications. Whether you are a parent facing a similar dispute or a legal professional advising clients, the case emphasizes the importance of evidence, guideline nuances, and judicial discretion. On remand, Father’s obligation in this case will likely decrease, but the exact amount will depend on how the trial court weighs the remanded issues.

For more insights, consult a family law attorney familiar with Indiana’s guidelines.  While I did not address the effect if the person receiving support lives in a jurisdiction outside of Indiana but is receiving support from an Indiana court order, the implications could be that the person receiving support should receive more than if he or she lived in Indiana.

Prepared by Richard A. Mann of Mann Law, P.C. Attorneys at Law
www.rmannlawoffice.com
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RAMattorneys?ref=hl
Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/RAMattorneys
http://ramlawoffice.blogspot.com/
Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardmannfamilylawattorney/
Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mannlawpc/
Also find us on Google Maps and Waze

This blog does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney client relationship.  This is for general information purposes as in most legal situations the facts and terms of an agreement between the parties can affect the result.  Citations are hyperlinked.