FILED
Jan 25 2019, 8:39 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Robert J. Palmer Laura M. Longstreet
May Oberfell Lorber South Bend, Indiana
Mishawaka, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Thomas Virgil Messner, January 25, 2019
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-DR-1110
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Circuit
Court
Dawn Marie Messner, The Honorable John Broden,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71C01-1408-DR-566
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 1 of 12
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Petitioner, Thomas Messner (Father), appeals from the trial court’s
Order granting the request of Appellee-Respondent, Dawn Messner (Mother),
to be relieved from financial contribution for the post-secondary educational
expenses of their daughter, Riley Messner (Riley).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUES
[3] Father presents two issues on appeal, which we restate as:
(1) Whether the trial court assessed the evidence of repudiation pursuant
to the correct legal standard; and
(2) Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that
Riley repudiated her relationship with Mother.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] Mother and Father have two children born of their marriage, Riley, born on
October 31, 1998, and a younger son. Mother also has a daughter, Taylor,
from a previous marriage. Father and Mother separated in June of 2014 when
Father was presented with proof of Mother’s infidelity. Father filed for
dissolution of the marriage on August 8, 2014. After the separation, Mother’s
relationship with Riley became strained, but the two remained in contact
throughout 2014. Sometime in 2014, Father and the children met with Mother
in a restaurant and gave her an ultimatum that she must end her relationship
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 2 of 12
with her new partner if she wished to have any future relationship with her
children. Mother did not accept that ultimatum. Attempts at family counseling
to improve the relationship between Mother and her children failed when Riley
ended the last session by walking out.
[5] Mother and Riley communicated in 2015 mainly through texts and through
Taylor as an intermediary. Most of the texts were initiated by Mother. Mother
gave Riley gifts for major holidays and her birthday. Riley did not
acknowledge these gifts or respond to Mother. Riley did not affirmatively tell
Mother that she wanted a relationship with her, and she told her on more than
one occasion that she did not wish to have a relationship.
[6] On February 12, 2016, in response to a motion by Mother for temporary joint
legal custody and parenting time, the trial court entered an order denying
Mother both. The trial court found, after having held an in camera interview
with Riley and her brother, that there was a “deep, seemingly bottomless rift
between the children and Mother.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 36). The trial
court found that, because of the children’s age, any attempt by the trial court to
impose parenting time on them would lead to further resentment of Mother.
[7] Throughout 2016, Mother sent Riley texts and provided gifts to Riley on major
holidays and on her birthday. Riley did not respond to these efforts at contact
by Mother or acknowledge the gifts. Riley turned eighteen years old on
October 31, 2016. Mother continued to text Riley after Riley reached the age of
majority, but Mother received no response.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 3 of 12
[8] Riley visited several colleges in the Spring of 2017. Mother was not included in
any of these visits, nor was she consulted for advice on college selection. Riley
graduated from high school on May 26, 2017. Riley did not invite her Mother
to her high school graduation or to her graduation party. On August 17, 2017,
Father moved the trial court for an order requiring Mother to contribute to
Riley’s college expenses. In the fall of 2017, Riley began attending college at
Azusa Pacific University in California. When Mother learned of this fact
during mediation with Father, she texted Riley to procure her address so that
she could send her a birthday gift. Riley responded that she did not feel
comfortable providing Mother her address and that any gift could be left at
Father’s house, which Mother did.
[9] On December 18, 2017, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Father’s
motion. Mother testified that she had desired and continued to desire a
relationship with Riley. Riley testified that she had no current relationship with
Mother. When asked whether she desired a relationship with Mother, Riley
responded: “I – I don’t not desire . . . I am indifferent.” (Transcript Vol. II, pp.
104-05). Riley explained that she was indifferent to Mother because she felt
that Mother made no effort to have a relationship with her. Riley was unsure
what Mother would have to do to repair their relationship, and she felt that she
had to work on forgiving Mother before she could work with Mother on their
relationship. When asked if she was ready for a relationship with Mother,
Riley responded, “I wouldn’t say that I’m not ready. I would say that she isn’t
ready.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 109). Riley recounted that she and her brother had told
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 4 of 12
Mother in 2014 that, in order to continue to have a relationship, Mother must
discontinue contact with her new partner. Riley felt that it was fair for her to
make that request because a mother’s children should come before anyone else.
Riley did not approve of Mother’s new partner because he was significantly
younger than Mother, which Riley felt was “disgusting.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 109).
[10] On January 8, 2018, the trial court issued its Order concluding that Riley had
repudiated her relationship with Mother. In support of its conclusion, the trial
court made the following relevant findings of fact:
12. In this case, the evidence is clear that Mother and Riley have
no relationship, nor have they had any sort of relationship for at
least the last two years. When asked if she wants to have a
relationship with Mother, Riley explained that she is
“indifferent.” Since Riley and Mother stopped communicating
meaningfully in 2015, Riley told her mother that she was not
welcome to leave a gift for Riley’s younger brother’s birthday. In
2017, Riley told her mother she was not comfortable providing
her address (and that Mother could send any gift in care of
Father).
13. In both instances where Riley and Mother communicated, it
was Mother who initiated the contact. The first contact
(involving the brother’s birthday gift) was unplanned. The
second contact was minimal and does not appear welcoming.
14. Father attempts to shift blame for the situation to Mother,
arguing that Mother has not made any effort to have a
relationship with Riley. The Court finds that assigning blame to
Mother is not supported by the evidence. Indeed, Father may be
responsible in part for the current state of the relationship
between Mother and her children. As an example, after the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 5 of 12
parties separated, Father met with Mother and their two children at
a restaurant to deliver an ultimatum: stop dating the individual
Mother had been seeing or else the marriage would end. The
Court is quite disturbed that Father involved the children in this
effort to give Mother a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Children,
regardless of age, should never be put in the position of having to
choose one parent over another. Even adult children do not
deserve to be used as pawns that way. The Court cannot
condemn this tactic strongly enough.
15. The Court finds the evidence that Mother regularly
contacted Riley to say hello or wish her well to be credible. The
Court also finds the evidence that Riley failed to respond to all
but one of those overtures to be credible. Based on the credible
evidence in this case, the Court is sadly forced to conclude that
Riley has repudiated the relationship with Mother. This is not to
say that Mother has been a model parent over the years or even
since her contact with the children ended. Riley’s repudiation
may be entirely understandable. But as the courts have said, it
would be unjust to give Riley (and indirectly, Father) the benefit
of Mother’s financial contribution when Riley has been unwilling
to even consider responding to Mother’s efforts at outreach.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 22-23) (emphasis in original). The trial court
ordered that, in light of Riley’s repudiation of Mother, Mother was relieved
from contributing to Riley’s college expenses. On February 7, 2018, Father
filed a motion to correct error that the trial court denied on February 9, 2018.
On April 11, 2018, the trial court entered its Final Order in this case.
[11] Father now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 6 of 12
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[12] Father contends that the trial court erred when it determined that Riley had
repudiated Mother because it applied an incorrect legal standard and because
the evidence did not support its findings and conclusions. This court reviews a
trial court’s denial of college expense contribution for an abuse of discretion.
Lovold v. Ellis, 988 N.E.2d 1144, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In addition, when a
trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, we engage in a two-
step analysis. First, we determine whether the findings are supported by the
evidence, and we determine whether the findings support the trial court’s
judgment. Id. at 1150. When engaging in this review, we consider only
evidence that supports the trial court’s judgment, we do not reweigh the
evidence, and we do not reassess the credibility of witnesses. Lechien v. Wren,
950 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). It is the appellant’s burden to
establish that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Lovold, 988 N.E.2d
at 1150. “Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us
firmly convinced a mistake has been made.” Id. However, we review questions
of law de novo. Lechien, 950 N.E.2d at 841.
II. Legal Standard Applicable to Repudiation
[13] Father contends that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in this
case because “the trial court focused solely on Riley’s actions without
considering [Mother’s] actions.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 16). In Indiana, “there is
no absolute legal duty on the part of parents to provide a college education for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 7 of 12
their children.” McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
When a child who reaches the age of eighteen repudiates a parent, the parent is
allowed to dictate if and how much he or she will contribute to the child’s
college education. Id. (adopting the approach of Milne v. Milne, 556 A.2d 854,
856 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)). Repudiation is defined as a child’s complete refusal
to participate in a relationship with his or her parent. Scales v. Scales, 891
N.E.2d 1116, 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In determining whether a child has
repudiated a parent, the trial court’s focus is on the child’s actions after reaching
the age of majority. Id. However, the trial court may consider a child’s actions
which occurred before that age if the conduct continued after the child reached
the age of eighteen. See, e.g., Norris v. Pethe, 833 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005) (considering evidence that child’s repudiation of father commenced
when she was a minor but continued uninterrupted when she reached the age of
majority). The rationale for excusing parental contribution upon repudiation
was set forth by the McKay court as follows:
By college age, children of divorced parents must be expected to
begin to come to terms with the reality of their family’s situation.
They must begin to realize that their attitude and actions are their
individual responsibilities. Whatever their biases and
resentments, while one can understand how they got that way, when
they become adults it is no longer appropriate to allow them to
stay that way without consequence.
McKay, 644 N.E.2d at 167 (quotation omitted) (some emphasis omitted, some
added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 8 of 12
[14] In its Order the trial court cited the correct definition of repudiation, relying on
Kahn v. Baker, 36 N.E.3d 1103, 1112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied,
(Finding 8). The trial court examined this court’s decisions in McKay, Norris,
Lovold, and Kahn, emphasizing the conduct of the child in each case, (Findings
8-11). The trial court then concluded that Riley had repudiated Mother in this
case based on Riley’s failure to respond to Mother’s regular attempts at contact,
(Finding 15); Riley’s refusal to provide Mother her college address while
simultaneously directing Mother’s present to Father’s home, (Finding 12); and
Riley’s statement at the evidentiary hearing that she was indifferent to having a
relationship with Mother, (Finding 12). These actions and statements on
Riley’s part occurred after she reached the age of majority. In light of these
findings, we conclude that the trial court applied the correct legal standard to
the facts of this case.
[15] Father argues otherwise because he contends that the trial court “did not look
to whether [Mother] bore some responsibility for the strained relationship
between her and not only Riley, but also her other children.” (Appellant’s Br.
p. 18). However, Father acknowledges that the trial court found that Mother
had not been a model parent and that Riley’s repudiation may be entirely
understandable. Father essentially argues that, where both parties share the
blame for the deterioration of their relationship, a trial court should not excuse
the repudiated parent from contribution towards college expenses.
[16] On appeal, Father acknowledges that no existing Indiana precedent expressly
supports his argument. We decline to accept Father’s proposed addition to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 9 of 12
body of repudiation jurisprudence. Father’s argument might have some merit if
there was a presumption of parental contribution towards a child’s college
expenses; however, no such presumption exists. See McKay, 644 N.E.2d at 166.
In addition, the rationale for excusing contribution by a parent who has been
repudiated, namely that an adult child must stand on her own two feet and
accept the reality of her family situation, whatever the child’s resentments may
be and even if “one can understand how they got that way,” would be
undermined if we were to accept Father’s argument. Id. at 168 (quotation
omitted). Concluding that the trial court applied the correct legal standard, we
affirm the trial court’s Order.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[17] Father also argues that we must reverse the trial court’s Order because the
evidence did not establish that Riley had completely refused to participate in a
relationship with Mother after Riley turned eighteen. As already noted,
repudiation is the child’s “complete refusal to participate in a relationship with
the parent.” Duncan v. Duncan, 81 N.E.3d 219, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). This
is necessarily a fact-sensitive inquiry. Kahn, 36 N.E.3d at 1113.
[18] Here, a review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment indicates that,
after Riley turned eighteen, she did not respond to Mother’s continued efforts to
contact her. Riley did not acknowledge gifts sent to her by Mother. She did
not invite Mother to her high school graduation or to the party celebrating that
event. Riley did not include Mother making the decision of where to attend
college. Mother was informed of Riley’s choice of college during mediation on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 10 of 12
Father’s request for Mother’s contribution to Riley’s college expenses. When
Mother asked Riley for her college address so that she could send her a birthday
present, Riley refused to provide her address to Mother. Riley was willing,
however, to accept Mother’s gift, as long as it was sent to Father’s address.
Riley gave her Mother an ultimatum in 2014 that Mother must leave her new
partner in order to have a relationship with her. Mother did not leave her new
partner, and Riley continued to enforce that ultimatum after she turned
eighteen due to her disapproval of Mother’s relationship, which she testified at
the evidentiary hearing she found “disgusting.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 109). This
evidence, which Father does not address on appeal, supports the trial court’s
determination that Riley repudiated her relationship with Mother after Riley
reached the age of majority.
[19] On appeal, Father argues that “the evidence establishes that Riley remains open
to a relationship with [Mother].” (Appellant’s Br. p. 23). In support of that
argument, Father directs us to Riley’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing that
she had forgiven Mother, she would not say that she is not ready for a
relationship with Mother, she denied not desiring to have a relationship with
[20] Mother, and she was simply indifferent to her Mother. 1 However, the trial
court heard this evidence. It was within the sound discretion of the trial court
1
In his Reply Brief, Father asserts that this argument is not a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the trial court’s judgment. We disagree. Inasmuch as Father asserts that indifference cannot be
equated to a repudiation as a matter of law, he has failed to develop that argument with adequate citation to
legal authority in contravention to Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 11 of 12
to weigh these statements against Riley’s actions and to find that she had
refused to participate in a relationship with Mother. Pursuant to our standard
of review, we will not second-guess the trial court’s judgment by reweighing
that evidence. See Lechien, 950 N.E.2d at 841. Given that there was evidence in
the record to support the trial court’s repudiation determination, which is the
only evidence we will consider, we are not firmly convinced that a mistake has
been made by the trial court. See Lovold, 988 N.E.2d at 1151 (noting that if
there is evidence to support the trial court’s findings in favor of repudiation, the
findings are not clearly erroneous).
CONCLUSION
[21] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court applied the correct legal
standard in assessing the evidence and that the evidence supported the trial
court’s determination that Riley repudiated her relationship with Mother.
[22] Affirmed.
[23] Kirsch, J. concurs
[24] Robb, J. concurs in result without opinion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-1110 | January 25, 2019 Page 12 of 12