The Court of Appeals recently decided this case. The case raises points about enterprise versus personal goodwill, inherited assets, and dissipation. The Court found it curious that the husband was willing to value certain items at one price if he received them, but a different price if the wife received them. The curious portion of the case is this paragraph:

Indiana Code Section 31-15-4-14 states, “A provisional order terminates when: (1) the final decree is entered subject to right of appeal; or (2) the petition for dissolution or legal separation is dismissed.” Indiana Code Section 31-15-4-15 states, “The terms of a provisional order may be revoked or modified before the final decree on a showing of the facts appropriate to revocation or modification.” It logically follows, then, that the terms of a provisional order may not be revoked or modified before the final decree unless such a showing is made. Here, the practical effect of findings 46 and 50 of the Final Decree was to modify the terms of the Provisional Order as to child support and healthcare expenses, even though Wife made no request for such, much less a showing of the facts appropriate to such modifications before the hearing on the Final Decree.[6] As such, we conclude that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in ordering a retroactive increase of Husband’s child support and healthcare expenses in the Final Decree.

The decision says that unless you file a motion to modify a provisional order, the court cannot retroactively modify the provisional order during the final hearing. This is nothing new, but the opinion does not explain why the trial court chose to retroactively modify the support without any pending motion. Curious as to what the trial court was thinking.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10101219021245705622&q=troyer+2013&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15