# Brown v. Brown

> Indiana Court of Appeals · November 25, 1991 · 581 N.E.2d 1260

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730287

## Case

- **Full name:** Marjorie BROWN, Appellant, v. James A. BROWN, Appellee
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 25, 1991
- **Citations:** 581 N.E.2d 1260; 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 1995; 1991 WL 253069
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Chezem
- **Judges:** Chezem, Conover, Rucker
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9730287

## Opinion text

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the majority that the trial court's 1986 modification warranted pro *1265 spective application. I also agree that James is entitled to credit for his payments to his daughter, but only because the December 27, 1983 decree did not specify to whom the support would be paid. Paying support to a child is not necessarily supporting the child as many children would not apply the support to food and shelter. See Whitman v. Whitman (1980), Ind. App., 405 N.E.2d 608 . I believe a better policy would be for the trial court to designate the recipient in its decree, which would prevent any uncertainty when determining the trial court's original intent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730287. Public record. Not legal advice.