CourtListener opinion 4211634

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Oct 13 2017, 9:02 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
 Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
 and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Jeffry G. Price Rebecca R. Vent
Peru, Indiana McIntyre Hilligoss Vent O'Keefe &
 Welke
 Kokomo, Indiana

 IN THE
 COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lora L. (Padilla) Goodman, October 13, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
 52A05-1701-DR-203
 v. Appeal from the Miami Superior
 Court
Carlos J. Padilla, The Honorable J. David Grund,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
 Trial Court Cause No.
 52D01-10-DR-348

Brown, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 1 of 21
 [1] Lora L. (Padilla) Goodman ("Mother") appeals the trial court's order that

 Carlos J. Padilla ("Father") is not required to make any further child support

 and college expense payments due to overpayment. She raises two issues

 which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred in determining

 that Father paid the child support judgments against him and in granting

 Father's petition for the elimination of college expenses. We affirm.

 Facts and Procedural History

[2] Mother and Father are the parents of three adult children: Caleb, born August

 13, 1991, Jessa, born November 8, 1993, and Silas, born October 16, 1995

 (collectively, the "Children"). In October 2000, Mother filed a petition for

 dissolution of marriage, and a provisional order approved by the court on

 October 12, 2000, ordered Father to pay $250 per week in child support.

[3] In July 2003, the court entered a decree of dissolution ordering Father to pay

 child support to Mother in the amount of $285.09 per week beginning July 17,

 2003. The court ordered Father to pay 15% of his gross overtime pay in

 addition to the weekly child support payment and made this payment

 retroactive to August 24, 2001. The court also ordered Father to provide

 health, dental, optical, prescription, and orthodontia insurance for the Children

 through his employer and pay 73% of these expenses and non-prescription and

 health care expenses not otherwise paid by health insurance exceeding

 $1,026.48 annually. It ordered Father to pay $12,609.62 with interest of 8% per

 year until paid in full.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 2 of 21
 [4] On March 26, 2004, the court issued a judgment against Father in the amount

 of $14,630.02, which included $10,617.76 in arrears for non-payment of

 overtime income for the period of August 2001 to February 29, 2004, $1,878.67

 for the Children's orthodontic work, and expenses related to Mother attending

 the hearing and her attorney fees in the amount of $2,133.59.

[5] On March 4, 2010, the court found Father in contempt in part for failure: to

 provide Mother notification of change in medical insurance coverage; keep

 Children covered with health, dental, orthodontic and optical insurance; and

 pay his percentage share of uninsured medical expenses for the period of 2004

 to 2006. As sanction for this finding, Father was ordered to pay the sum of

 $13,428.03 for the following expenses: $72.96 for 2004 medical expenses;

 $4,449.63 for 2006 medical expenses; $169.58 for medical expenses incurred by

 Mother for his failure to provide insurance cards; $7,654.77 in uninsured

 medical expenses resulting in his not maintaining health insurance for Children;

 and $1,081.09 for 2009 medical expenses. It ordered Father to pay Mother's

 attorney fees in the amount of $3,000. The court also found that "the judgment

 calculation regarding the Court's previous judgment totaling $8,365.11 is the

 correct judgment calculation as of February 4, 2010." Appellant's Appendix

 Volume II at 55.

[6] An entry dated July 22, 2010, in the chronological case summary indicates that

 the court entered an order modifying Father's child support to $187 per week

 beginning January 15, 2010, and finding that Father owed a child support

 arrearage to Mother in the amount of $8,059.52 as of April 28, 2010. The entry

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 3 of 21
 also indicates that the court ordered Father to pay Mother's attorney fees in the

 amount of $2,000 within 180 days of the order's date.

[7] On February 9, 2011, Mother filed a Release of Judgment acknowledging the

 receipt of payment in full from Father of the July 22, 2010 judgment pursuant

 to which Father was to pay Mother $8,059.52 in principal plus interest. The

 release stated that it "[i]n no way . . . serve[s] as a release of the July 17, 2003

 judgment or the March 4, 2010 judgment that also were entered against

 [Father] and in favor of [Mother] . . . ." Id. at 56.

[8] A document titled "ORDER," dated August 25, 2011, and signed only by

 Father, states that Mother and Father were both in agreement that Father owed

 $11,637 for Caleb's 2011-2012 college expenses, that Father agreed to make

 payment arrangements with Goshen College to pay $3,137 by May 20, 2012,

 and that Father agreed to pay the remaining $8,500 to repay Caleb's loans taken

 out for Father's portion by making minimum payments of $215 by the fifteenth

 of every month to Mother until paid in full, with such payments not beginning

 until June 15, 2012. Id. at 58.

[9] An Agreed Order Book Entry dated October 13, 2013 signed by the parties'

 attorneys and the trial court states that Caleb turned twenty-one and was

 effectively emancipated, Jessa turned nineteen and was also effectively

 emancipated, and that Caleb and Jessa were attending college. The entry stated

 Father's weekly child support order should be modified to $143 per week

 beginning November 10, 2012; following Silas's emancipation, Father's

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 4 of 21
 "weekly payment of $125.00 shall continue" to be withheld from Father's pay

 as a garnishment and applied to his outstanding judgments beginning with the

 application of payments to the July 13, 2003 judgment; Father's arrearage as of

 July 1, 2013, was $2,133 and that this amount gave Father credit for all

 payments made through the child support clerk and the difference in payment

 amounts of $187 to $125 from November 9, 2012 to July 1, 2013; Father would

 not be required to make payments toward outstanding judgments until Silas's

 emancipation; and Father would pay one-half, but no more than $2,000 per

 semester for Caleb and Jessa each towards their college expenses as well as

 continuing to make monthly payments of $215 for Caleb's outstanding college

 loan "per the ‘Order' signed by Father on August 25, 2011. Id. at 60.

[10] On June 19, 2013, Mother filed a petition to renew judgment.1 On November

 22, 2013, the court granted Mother's petition to renew judgment and stated that

 it granted Mother's request "to renew the Judgment entered against [Father] in

 the amount of $12,609.62 on July 17, 2013 and in favor of [Mother]. Therefore,

 the balance of this Judgment is $4,981.47 as of June 17, 2013." Id. at 63.

[11] An Agreed Order Book Entry dated September 26, 2014, states: Father would

 "pay one-half of Silas' post-secondary education expenses after all grants and

 scholarships are applied the first year and then one-half but no more than

 $2,500 per following semester"; Father would "pay his part of college expenses

 1
 The record does not contain a copy of Mother's petition.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 5 of 21
 after being provided documentation of his portion in an amount of $250 each

 week"; Father's "regular child support will cease"; and Father owed $5,908.02

 for Caleb and Jessa's college expenses. Id. at 67-68.

[12] On March 6, 2015, the court entered an Amended Agreed Order Book Entry

 signed by both parties, which provides in part:

 1. [Father] agrees to, in support/maintenance of the child; pay
 one-half of all Silas' post-secondary education expenses after all
 grants and scholarships are applied the first year and then one-
 half but no more than $2,500 per following semester after all
 grants and scholarships are applied.

 2. [Father] agrees to pay his part of the college expenses after
 being provided documentation of his portion in an amount of
 $250.00 each week, beginning Friday, August 15, 2014 . . . .

 3. [Father's] regular child support will cease after the signing of
 this order, and no modification will be made retroactive due to
 [Mother's] short term disability.

 4. [Father] agrees he owes $5,908.02 for Caleb and Jessa's
 college expenses for Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters.
 [Father] will deliver $3,000.00 in two checks in the amount of
 $2,000.00 for one and $1,000.00 for the other, to [Mother] no
 later than Friday, August 15, 2014, and September 1, 2014, to be
 applied to these outstanding college expenses for Caleb and
 Jessa, with credit to be given to [Father]. Thereafter, this amount
 would be reduced to a judgment in support/maintenance of the
 children.

 5. [Father] agrees that a weekly payment of $150.00 by
 EFT/ACH from his bank account to [Mother]'s bank account be

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 6 of 21
 withheld from his pay as a garnishment and applied to [Father's]
 outstanding judgments . . . .

 6. [Father] agrees that the first $1,000 from his annual federal tax
 refund starting in 2014 as well as the first $1,000 from any
 bonuses received from his employer will be relinquished to
 [Mother] within 5 days of receipt.

 7. [Mother] will provide any significant college communication
 or information including grades for each of the children to
 [Father] within one week of receipt.

 8. [Father] agrees if he does not comply with any agreement in
 this order and other prior orders, he will be responsible for
 [Mother's] attorney fees in attempts to rectify the situation(s).

 Id. at 64-65.2

[13] In a letter delivered to Father on November 20, 2015, Mother wrote that "[i]t

 will be a while before I can get Silas' spring college expenses to you," that she

 "may just wait until Silas' contract is up on his apartment," and "[t]his will give

 me time to refigure all his expenses and I will then have all his utility bills to

 have a total for everything instead of submitting expenses to you every month."

 2
 The Amended Agreed Order Book Entry contains signatures by Father's attorney and Mother and the date
 listed by each signature is February 27, 2015. The Amended Agreed Order Book Entry also states: "SO
 ORDERED this 6 day of March, 2014." Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 66. The chronological case
 summary contains an entry dated March 12, 2015, which states: "Amended Agreed Order Book Entry
 submitted and APPROVED on March 6, 2015." Id. at 32. Father notes in his brief that the date of March 6,
 2014, instead of 2015 constitutes a scrivener's error. We agree.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 7 of 21
 Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Mother also wrote "if you'd rather me send you bits and

 pieces as I get them, let me know." Id.

[14] On December 3, 2015, Father filed a Petition to Determine Child Support and

 College Expense Payments and Arrearages and Petition for Reduction or

 Elimination of College Expenses. On January 28, 2016, Mother petitioned the

 court to hold Father in contempt.3

[15] On September 28, 2016, a hearing was held and the court heard testimony from

 Mother and Father. Mother testified that Jessa was married, has one child, and

 was enrolled in the Indiana College of Sports and Medical Massage, and that

 Jessa and her husband lived with her. She testified that Silas graduated from

 high school in 2014, completed two years of college, but was not enrolled

 because she "needed to pay on something for him and I told him he needed to

 wait a little bit . . . ." Transcript at 8. She testified that she wanted Father to

 pay college expenses for Jessa and Silas and a past college loan related to Caleb,

 but was not asking for any future college expenses for Caleb. She stated that

 she provided information on college expenses to Father in August 2015 after

 she had complications from brain surgery, that she sent a certified letter in

 November 2015 informing Father of her illness and her intention of providing

 documentation to him of the Children's college expenses in the future. She

 3
 The record does not contain a copy of Father's December 3, 2015 petition or Mother's petition to hold
 Father in contempt.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 8 of 21
 testified that she communicated with Father about college expenses on

 September 26, 2016.

[16] Father testified that he received an email from Mother detailing additional

 college expenses in August 2015 and again the Monday prior to the hearing.

 He testified that he paid $238,697.43, that he should have paid $179,980, and

 that he overpaid $58,717. He stated that Silas has a different last name than

 him, that he does not have a relationship with the Children, and that they have

 not called him for Father's Day, his birthday, or Christmas. On cross-

 examination, Father stated that he had not tried to contact his Children. He

 stated that he completed the counseling mentioned in the divorce decree, and

 when asked, "[b]ut you didn't restart your visitation with the children," Father

 answered, "No they were out of state." Id. at 25. When asked, "[b]ut haven't

 they been back in the State of Indiana for quite some time," Father answered

 affirmatively. Id. He testified that he stopped paying Mother for college

 expenses at some point and continued to have the ability to pay.

[17] On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order stating in part:

 The court, having considered the testimony and evidence
 presented by the parties, the prior history of the case and
 applicable law, now finds as follows:

 *****

 3. The Dissolution Decree entered a judgment against Father in
 the sum of $12,609.62. The judgment docket maintained by the
 Miami County Clerk of Court shows this judgment satisfied May

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 9 of 21
 19, 2009, yet due to interest, was renewed in the sum of
 $4,981.47 on November 22, 2013.

 4. On March 26, 2004, Father was found to be in arrears for the
 non-payment of overtime earnings between 2001 and 2004 in the
 sum of $10,617.76, plus orthodontic work for the children in the
 sum of $1,878.67, for a total of $12,496.43. Father satisfied the
 total amount due by transferring said funds by QDRO on
 November 22, 2004.

 5. On February 4, 2010, the court entered two judgments against
 Father. The first judgment was for $13,428.03. The second
 judgment was for $8,365.11, for a total of $21,793.14. Father
 satisfied the second judgment in the sum of $8,365.11 on
 1/18/11 by paying $8,400 as evidenced by the child support
 payment history introduced into evidence in Father's Exhibit A.

 6. On August 25, 2011, the parties agreed Father would pay
 Caleb's college loans in the sum of $8,500 at the rate of $215 per
 month, paid directly to Mother. This amount having never been
 ordered by the court. Father satisfied this amount as evidenced
 by checks Father paid directly to Mother and introduced into
 evidence in Father's Exhibit A.

 7. On October 25, 2013, the court entered an order for a
 judgment on child support in the sum of $2,133. Father satisfied
 this amount by overpaying his child support obligation as
 evidenced by the child support payment history introduced into
 evidence in Father's Exhibit A.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 10 of 21
 8. On March 6, 2015,[4] the court entered an order for judgment
 on Caleb and Jessa's college expenses in the sum of $5,908.02.
 Father agreed to satisfy this amount by paying two checks in the
 amount of $2,000 and $1,000 by August 15, 2014 and the
 remaining balance of $2,908.02 to be paid at the rate of $150 per
 week. Father satisfied the two oldest children's college expenses
 in the sum of $5,908.02 by paying Mother directly as evidenced
 by the records in Father's Exhibit A.

 9. In addition to the above agreements, orders and judgments,
 Father also owed weekly child support for all three children in
 the sum of $285.00 from July 17, 2003 through July 22, 2010 for
 a total of $105,768.39. Father owed child support for two of the
 three children in the sum of $187 per week from July 23, 2010
 through November 10, 2012 for a total of $22,253. Father then
 owed $143 per week for one child from November 11, 2012
 through October 16, 2014 for a total of $14,443. Father's total
 child support obligation between July 17, 2003 (Dissolution
 Decree) and October 16, 2014 (Silas's emancipation) totaled
 $142,464.39. The Court established in its' [sic] order of October
 25, 2013 that Father had a child support arrearage of $2,133.00 as
 of July 1, 2013. The order of October 25, 2013 was the last order
 addressing Father's support arrearage and established the overall
 support arrearage amount going forward for purposes of
 calculation.

 10. The total amount due by Father for judgments, agreements,
 and court orders was $55,925.25.

4
 Mother asserts in her brief that the trial court's December 22, 2016 order erroneously referred to this order
as being entered on March 6, 2015. As previously noted, based upon the date listed by each signature of
February 27, 2015, and the entry in the chronological case summary dated March 12, 2015, we conclude that
the date of 2014 in the March 6th order appears to have been a scrivener's error.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 11 of 21
 11. The court finds the total due by Father for child support
 beginning July 1, 2013 date of last arrearage calculation was
 $11,428.00 plus judgments and court orders in the sum of
 $24,317.52, for a total amount owed by Father in the sum of
 $35,745.52.

 12. The child support payment history from the Miami County
 Clerk of Court showed on pages 1-22 that Father paid
 $124,174.64. The child support payment history from the Miami
 County Clerk of Court showed on pages 22-33 that Father paid
 an additional $69,123.17. The judgment docket maintained by
 the Miami County Clerk of the Court showed that Father paid a
 total of $22,091.62 to Mother. The total amount Father paid
 through the Miami County Clerk was $215,389.43.

 13. In addition to the funds paid through the Miami County
 Clerk's Office, Father also paid Mother either directly or through
 electronic funds transfer the total sum of $28,600. None of these
 payments, either made through the Clerk of the Court or directly
 to Mother, were disputed by Mother and were admitted into
 evidence through Father's Exhibit A.

 14. When subtracting Father's payments through the Clerk of
 the Court and what he paid directly to Mother from what Father
 owed, the court finds Father is overpaid in the sum $36,598.60.
 A summary as to the court's calculations is attached hereto.

 15. The court finds [Father] has satisfied all judgments with
 interest, all child support and all college expenses incurred by the
 children.

 16. The court finds that there has been a substantial change of
 circumstances warranting modification of the Court's orders for
 the following reasons: Father owes no further college expenses
 for the children in that the two oldest children are married. All

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 12 of 21
 three children have not attended college for significant periods of
 time. The middle child, Jessa, enrolled in post-secondary
 education currently is married and a housewife. Furthermore,
 Mother was obligated to provide Father with the children's
 grades and college expenses as set forth in their March 6, 2015
 Agreement, yet she failed to do so after the Spring Semester of
 2015. None of the children have a relationship with their father
 and do not communicate with him in any fashion. The children
 did not include him in their choice for college, did not keep him
 informed of their educational goals or pursuits, did not provide
 him with their grades. Father's Petition for the Elimination of
 College Expenses is granted. Father is relieved of any future
 obligation to contribute to his adult children's college expenses
 for the reasons stated.

 17. Mother filed a citation alleging Father failed to pay college
 expenses per the Court's order. The Court finds that Father
 voluntarily and intentionally discontinued making the required
 payments without Court order relieving him of the obligation
 while having income to pay the same. The Court finds Father in
 Contempt for this willful violation of the Court's order. The
 Court orders Father to pay $1000.00 in Mother's attorney fees to
 attorney Elizabeth Price as a sanction and to purge himself of
 contempt. This payment to be made within 90 days. Although
 Mother never filed anything in writing, Mother verbally
 requested the court to order Father to pay a portion of Jessa's
 expenses for massage school. That request is also denied for the
 reasons stated above.

Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 82-86. The court attached a document to

the order providing a summary of Father's obligations, a summary of Father's

payments, and acknowledging the agreement between the parties.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 13 of 21
 Discussion

[18] The issue is whether the trial court erred in determining Father paid the child

 support judgments and in granting his petition for the elimination of college

 expenses. Where, as here, the trial court issued findings of fact and

 conclusions, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Quinn v. Quinn, 62

 N.E.3d 1212, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). First, we determine whether the

 evidence supports the findings, and second, whether the findings support the

 judgment. Id. The trial court's findings are controlling unless the record

 includes no facts to support them either directly or by inference. Id. Legal

 conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo. Id. We set aside a trial court's

 judgment only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. "Clear error occurs when our

 review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment leaves us firmly

 convinced that a mistake has been made." Id.

[19] Mother argues that this court's confidence that the findings are the result of a

 considered judgment is eroded because the trial court adopted, wholesale, the

 findings and conclusions offered by Father. Under the heading, "STANDARD

 OF REVIEW," Mother points to a number of alleged errors in the trial court's

 order. Appellant's Brief at 14. She contends that the trial court's conclusion

 that Father had satisfied all judgments with interest and all child support and

 college expenses was clearly erroneous. Mother argues that the trial court's

 finding that Father had overpaid directly contradicted the court's finding that

 Father was in contempt. She asserts that the purpose of child support is to

 provide regular and uninterrupted support for the children and that voluntary

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 14 of 21
 overpayments are properly treated as gratuities to the children and no credit is

 granted. She also contends that Father's exhibit and proposed order and

 ultimately the court's order ignored the October 12, 2000 Agreed Entry in

 which the court ordered Father to pay $250 per week.

[20] Father asserts that the trial court's order differs in several respects from his

 proposed order, and he argues that it is not surprising that the court followed

 his proposed order with respect to further college expenses because it was

 undisputed that the two oldest children were married and both had been college

 dropouts for a significant period of time. He also argues that Mother admitted

 she failed to provide the Children's grades and college expenses as she was

 mandated to do in the March 6, 2015 order. He contends that the court's

 calculations were supported by his bank records and records from the Miami

 County Clerk. He also argues that the court properly found that there was a

 substantial change in circumstances warranting the termination of his duty to

 continue supporting his adult children's education.

[21] To the extent Mother argues that the court adopted Father's proposed findings

 and conclusions wholesale, we observe that generally "[a]lthough we do not

 apply an altered standard of review when a trial court adopts a party's findings

 verbatim, ‘near verbatim reproductions may appropriately justify cautious

 appellate scrutiny.'" Carpenter v. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d 587, 593 (Ind. Ct. App.

 2008) (quoting Stevens v. State, 770 N.E.2d 739, 762 (Ind. 2002), reh'g denied, cert.

 denied, 540 U.S. 830, 124 S. Ct. 69 (2003)). We also observe that the court's

 December 22, 2016 order altered Father's proposed findings in a number of

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 15 of 21
 ways including: the amount Father paid according to the Miami County Clerk;

 the amount Father paid through electronic funds transfer; and the amount

 Father overpaid. The court also found Father in contempt and ordered him to

 pay $1,000 for Mother's attorney fees.

[22] Mother appears to challenge the court's finding that a judgment was renewed in

 the sum of $4,981.47 on November 22, 2013. However, the record reveals that

 the court granted Mother's petition to renew judgment on November 22, 2013,

 and stated that it granted Mother's request "to renew the Judgment entered

 against [Father] in the amount of $12,609.62 on July 17, 2013 and in favor of

 [Mother]. Therefore, the balance of this Judgment is $4,981.47 as of June 17,

 2013." Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 63.

[23] Mother points to Petitioner's Exhibit 13, which includes a spreadsheet with two

 rows containing information and lists an amount of $8,059.52 as a "Balance."

 Petitioner's Exhibit 13. After pointing to Petitioner's Exhibit 13, Mother then

 states: "Therefore, the trial court has miscalculated the college expense that

 [Father] should have paid and has erred, as a matter of law, in determining that

 he overpaid his obligation for the children." Appellant's Brief at 20. We

 cannot say that Petitioner's Exhibit 13 renders the court's order clearly

 erroneous. We also observe that Father testified that he believed he overpaid in

 terms of college expenses and child support and that the court admitted Father's

 Exhibit A as a summary of his testimony.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 16 of 21
 [24] With respect to Mother's argument that the trial court's finding that Father had

 overpaid contradicted its finding that Father was in contempt, we observe that

 this Court has previously held that "child support payments cannot be applied

 prospectively to support not yet due at the time of the overpayment." Drwecki v.

 Drwecki, 782 N.E.2d 440, 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Matson v. Matson,

 569 N.E.2d 732, 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)).

 The rationale behind the rule is that it would be unjust for a non-
 custodial parent to voluntarily build up a substantial credit and
 then suddenly refuse to make support payments for a period of
 time. This would thwart the court's purpose of providing
 regular, uninterrupted income for the benefit of the children. The
 regularity and continuity of court decreed support payments are
 as important as the overall dollar amount of those payments.

 Id. at 448-449 (quoting Matson, 569 N.E.2d at 733). Mother does not argue or

 point to the record to show that Father improperly paid more than he was

 required to pay under certain court orders or improperly built up a substantial

 credit. We note that the trial court did not order Father to recoup any excess

 payments.5

[25] As for Mother's argument that the trial court failed to account for the October

 12, 2000 order to pay child support and improperly began its calculation of

 Father's child support with the July 2013 finding of arrearage of $2,133, we

 observe that the Agreed Order Book Entry dated October 13, 2013, stated that

 5
 Father does not appeal the finding of contempt.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 17 of 21
 "[a]s of July 1, 2013, [Father's] current arrearage is $2,133.00." Appellant's

 Appendix at Volume II at 60.

[26] Mother also asserts that the trial court notes judgments for two of the children's

 college expenses in the amount of $5,908.02 and that the court noted at the

 bottom of the same attachment that Father was required to pay $8,500 for

 Caleb's college loans. Mother does not appear to argue that these amounts are

 incorrect,6 but contends that "[y]et, incredibly, the trial court concluded that

 [Father] had paid all amounts which he owed for the children's college

 expenses." Appellant's Brief at 24. The trial court's order refers to the amount

 of $8,500 and states that "Father satisfied this amount as evidenced by checks

 paid directly to Mother and introduced into evidence in Father's Exhibit A."

 Id. at 83. We cannot say that Mother has developed a cogent argument

 regarding how the court's inclusion of these amounts in the summary sheet

 attached to the order conflicts with its conclusion that Father has satisfied all

 judgments or that the checks included in Respondent's Exhibit A did not

 support the court's finding. Accordingly, this argument is waived.

 6
 The amounts appear to have support in the record. The August 25, 2011 document signed by Father states
 that he agreed "to pay remaining $8,500, to repay Caleb's loans . . . ." Appellant's Appendix Volume II at
 58. The March 6, 2015 Amended Agreed Order Book Entry provided that Father "agrees he owes $5,908.02
 for Caleb and Jessa's college expenses for Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters." Id. at 65.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 18 of 21
 [27] Mother argues that the trial court made no mention in its order or attached

 summary of Father's obligations to assist in the college expenses for Silas. In

 the March 6, 2015 Amended Agreed Order Book Entry, the court found that

 Father agreed to "pay one-half of all Silas' post-secondary education expenses

 after all grants and scholarships are applied the first year and then one-half but

 no more than $2,500 per following semester after all grants and scholarships are

 applied." Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 64. The order also stated that

 Father "agrees to pay his part of the college expenses after being provided

 documentation of his portion in an amount of $250.00 each week, beginning

 Friday, August 15, 2014." Id. at 64 (emphasis added). At the hearing, Mother

 testified that the last time Silas was enrolled in school was spring of 2016. On

 cross-examination, she indicated that she had not provided Father with any

 documentation regarding what he needed to pay since August 2015 and that

 she did not receive a court order extending the time that she could have to

 provide him with the information. Father testified that he paid Mother an

 amount for Silas's college expenses through March 2016 despite the fact he had

 not received any verification of Silas's college expenses for the spring semester.

 We cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the judgment had

 been satisfied. Nor can we say that Mother has demonstrated that the court

 erred in finding that Father overpaid in the sum $36,598.60.

[28] With respect to Mother's assertion that the court's conclusion that Father was

 not required to pay future college expenses was clearly erroneous, we observe

 that Ind. Code § 31-16-6-2 "gives guidance regarding contribution toward post-

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 19 of 21
 secondary educational expenses, listing certain factors to take into account,

 such as ‘the child's aptitude and ability,' ‘the child's reasonable ability to

 contribute to educational expenses,' and ‘the ability of each parent to meet

 these expenses,' among other things." Hirsch v. Oliver, 970 N.E.2d 651, 660

 (Ind. 2012). "Child Support Guideline 8(b) lists expenses that may be included

 within a post-secondary educational expense order, such as tuition, books, lab

 fees, supplies, student activity fees, room and board under certain

 circumstances, transportation, car insurance, clothing, entertainment, and

 incidental expenses." Id. at 661. "This guideline also explicitly states that ‘[i]t

 is discretionary with the court to award post-secondary educational expenses

 and in what amount.'" Id. (quoting Child Supp. G. 8(b)). It continues that the

 court should "weigh the ability of each parent to contribute to payment of the

 expense, as well as the ability of the student to pay a portion of the expense."

 Child Supp. G. 8(b).

[29] The modification of a child support order is governed by Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1,

 which provides that modification may be made "upon a showing of changed

 circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable

 . . . ." "Generally, provisions for the payment of educational expenses are also

 modifiable because educational expenses are in the nature of child support."

 Svenstrup v. Svenstrup, 981 N.E.2d 138, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Martin v.

 Martin, 495 N.E.2d 523, 525 (Ind. 1986) ("Because Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-17

 [now Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1] expressly permits modification of ‘an order with

 respect to child support,' we hold that educational support orders not only

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 20 of 21
 continue following emancipation and age 21, but also are subject to further

 modification.").

[30] The record reveals that Jessa was married and her husband worked full-time.

 Silas was not in college at the time of the hearing. Moreover, in light of

 Father's overpayment of $36,598.60 and our determination that Mother has not

 demonstrated that Father improperly paid more than he was required to pay or

 improperly built up a substantial credit, we cannot say that the trial court's

 order was clearly erroneous.

 Conclusion

[31] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[32] Affirmed.

 May, J., and Pyle J., concur.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1701-DR-203 | October 13, 2017 Page 21 of 21