## Facts

- Amir Sanjari and Alison Sanjari married in 1982 and had two children.
- Alison filed a petition for dissolution in 1999.
- A provisional order awarded the parties joint legal custody and joint physical custody, with each parent having the children 50% of the time over each two-week period.
- During the provisional period, Amir was unemployed and Alison paid temporary child support of $51 per week.
- Before the final decree, the parties agreed to continue joint legal and joint physical custody on a true 50/50 schedule.
- After the dissolution was filed, Amir made advance payments to a private school he hoped the children would attend.
- The children did not attend that private school; the trial court ordered the children to remain in public school and declined to give Amir a credit or reimbursement for the prepaid tuition.
- Following a final hearing in August 2000, the trial court ordered Amir to pay graduated child support of $175 per week and then $215 per week, with increases tied to increases in Amir’s salary.
- The trial court entered a property division that distributed assets and significant debts; both parties’ net positions were negative, and the original decree included no equalization payment.
- Amir filed a notice of appeal; Alison filed a motion to correct errors, and the appeal was terminated and remanded so the trial court could rule.
- In February 2001, the trial court modified the property distribution to include previously omitted marital debt and an additional marital asset, and it entered an equalization judgment against Amir of $12,525.06.
- Amir appealed the child support order and the property division; Alison cross-appealed, arguing that mathematical mistakes made the equalization judgment too low.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in calculating child support by treating Amir as a noncustodial parent with a visitation deviation, despite a true 50/50 joint physical custody schedule.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to credit Amir for advance private-school tuition payments the children did not use.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in valuing and dividing the marital estate, and whether mathematical errors required correction of the equalization judgment.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
- Reversed the child support order and remanded for recalculation using the Indiana Child Support Guidelines approach for shared physical custody (rather than a visitation-credit model).
- Affirmed the trial court’s refusal to credit Amir for the unused private-school tuition payments.
- Affirmed the trial court’s discretionary property allocation in general.
- Reversed in part on Alison’s cross-appeal and remanded for correction of mathematical/accounting errors and recalculation of the equalization amount consistent with corrected figures.

## Legal Principles

- Child support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a support order is reversible when it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.
- When parents have genuine shared physical custody (such as a 50/50 schedule), child support should be computed using the Guidelines’ shared-custody method (including the approach described in the commentary to Indiana Child Support Guideline 6), not by labeling one parent as the visiting parent and applying a visitation deviation.
- Trial courts have discretion to allocate or deny credits for advance expenditures; reimbursement is not required when the expense did not result in the intended benefit for the children and the court determines a credit would be inequitable.
- A dissolution property division is reviewed deferentially; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility and will uphold a division that falls within the range allowed by Indiana law.
- Even when the overall property distribution is within the trial court’s discretion, appellate courts may order correction of clear mathematical or accounting errors so the decree matches the court’s stated intent.

## Conclusion

Because the parties’ parenting plan provided true 50/50 joint physical custody, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s child support order improperly treated Amir as a noncustodial parent with extended visitation and therefore required recalculation under the shared-custody method described by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. The court upheld the denial of any credit to Amir for prepaid private-school tuition the children never used, leaving that equitable choice to the trial court. Although the overall property allocation was largely within the trial court’s discretion, the appellate court found mathematical and accounting mistakes affecting the equalization judgment and sent the case back for correction and recalculation consistent with corrected numbers.


Sanjari v. Sanjari, 755 N.E.2d 1186 (2001)