# Whitman v. Whitman

> Indiana Court of Appeals · June 17, 1980 · 76 Ind. Dec. 607

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709437

## Case

- **Full name:** Cheryl WHITMAN, Appellant (Respondent and Cross-Petitioner Below), v. Don Edward WHITMAN, Appellee (Petitioner Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 17, 1980
- **Citations:** 76 Ind. Dec. 607; 405 N.E.2d 608; 1980 Ind. App. LEXIS 1509
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Shields, Buchanan, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709437

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming trial court’s order concluding father not in contempt despite noncompliance with child support order

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s decision concerning the modification of custody and the trial court’s contempt determination. I also concur in the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in giving credit to the husband for payments which did not conform to the support order.
In the case before us, the husband specifically testified that the credited support payments were premised, at least in part, upon a subjective disagreement concerning the needs of the children. The husband chose to provide arguably unessential items, e.g., toys and entertainment. Furthermore, husband does not defend the credit given him by the trial court except as it relates to the contempt determination. For these reasons, I concur in the result reached.
That the majority decided this issue upon the facts before us is indicated by the following:
“As this case is presented to us, we presently believe the rule disallowing credit for nonconforming payments is more beneficial to all parties.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Our decision here does not preclude, for all time and in all possible circumstances, the *615 application of equitable considerations to give credit for support paid in a form, manner, or at times insignificantly different from that ordered with great specificity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709437. Public record. Not legal advice.