Damian Profancik v. Leah Nicole Profancik
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Damian Profancik, FILED Appellant-Respondent Apr 04 2024, 9:05 am CLERK v. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court Leah Profancik, Appellee-Petitioner April 4, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-DR-1232 Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court The Honorable Marla K. Clark, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 41D04-1509-DR-545 Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann Chief Judge Altice and Judge Kenworthy concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 23A-DR-1232| April 4, 2024 Page 1 of 3 Weissmann, Judge. [1] Damian Profancik (Father) seeks rehearing of our January 31, 2024, opinion affirming the trial court’s order on, as relevant here, Father’s child support arrearage payments. We reaffirm our opinion but grant rehearing to address the arrearage’s repayment schedule. [2] Briefly recapping the relevant facts, the trial court found that Father had a child support arrearage of $260,934.83 and ordered him to repay this amount in monthly installments of $5,000. The $5,000 monthly arrears payments were in addition to Father’s regular child support payments of about $2,600 a month. Father contended that his arrearage repayment schedule was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion as being unduly burdensome. [3] We acknowledge that the monthly payments are a significant amount of money. And given the size of Father’s overall arrearage, any repayment schedule that attempts to be completed in a timely manner will necessarily impose a burden. That said, Father did not prove an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Our rationale for this decision is identical to that of our prior opinion: “Put plainly, Father’s arguments are undercut by his refusal to enter basic financial documents into the record.” Profancik v. Profancik, No. 23A-DR1232, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2024) (mem.). Given the evidence before the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 23A-DR-1232| April 4, 2024 Page 2 of 3 trial court, we find no fault in the court’s chosen repayment schedule.1 See SteeleGiri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016) (noting the “well-established preference in Indiana for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters” (internal quotation omitted)). [4] We grant Profancik’s petition for rehearing but re-affirm our original opinion in full. Altice, C.J., and Kenworthy, J., concur. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew S. Schoettmer Van Valer Law Firm, LLP Greenwood, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Donna Jameson Greenwood, Indiana 1 Of course, there can be circumstances where arrears payments twice as large as the current child support payments would be excessive. But this is not such a case. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 23A-DR-1232| April 4, 2024 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
