## Facts

- Tina Marie Dewbrew and Herbert A. Dewbrew married in 1990 and had two minor daughters.
- In 2003–2004, the parties discussed divorce and the division of marital assets, including two businesses.
- Herbert filed for dissolution in January 2004 while the parties still lived together.
- An attorney who had previously performed legal services for Herbert drafted a property settlement and custody agreement after meeting with both parties.
- The proposed agreement omitted any explicit child support provision based on the parties’ stated view that support was unnecessary.
- The agreement instead required Herbert to make monthly payments to Tina denominated as spousal maintenance ($3,000/month for five years, then $1,000/month for five years).
- Tina initially refused to sign because she believed the agreement was unfair; later, after learning of Herbert’s affair, she revisited the attorney’s office with her mother, reviewed the document, and signed.
- After entry of the dissolution decree incorporating the agreement, Tina contended the structure harmed the children because treating all payments as “alimony” created adverse tax consequences and left no enforceable child support obligation.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may approve and enforce a dissolution settlement that omits a child support provision because the parents agree child support is unnecessary.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the settlement-based decree due to “manifest inequity.”

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Tina’s post-judgment motion and remanded with instructions.
- The court held the decree could not stand without an explicit child support determination for the minor children, despite the parents’ agreement.
- The court directed the trial court on remand to address child support distinctly from spousal maintenance.
- The court concluded the circumstances and structure of the agreement warranted relief and required reconsideration of the settlement terms under the manifest-inequity standard.

## Legal Principles

- A child’s right to support cannot be waived or eliminated by parental agreement; the dissolution court must independently ensure adequate provision for minor children.
- A dissolution court is not required to accept a settlement that effectively avoids the child-support framework by labeling support-like payments as spousal maintenance without a clear child-support component.
- Economic effects relevant to the children’s welfare, including tax consequences that reduce net funds available for their care, may bear on whether an arrangement serves the children’s best interests.
- Settlement-based dissolution terms may be set aside where enforcement would result in manifest inequity, including where support arrangements and related terms operate unfairly in practice.
- When a dissolution decree is ambiguous, it is interpreted using ordinary contract interpretation rules; construction of unambiguous terms follows their plain meaning, and disagreement alone does not create ambiguity.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required the trial court to make an explicit child-support determination rather than enforce a settlement that omitted child support and relied on unallocated “maintenance” payments, and it remanded for reconsideration of the agreement due to manifest inequity and the need to protect the children’s interests.


Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, 849 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)