Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-15-7-3 (2025)
Modification or revocation of order for maintenance
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 3. Provisions of an order with respect to maintenance ordered under section 1 of this chapter (or IC 31-1-11.5-9(c) before its repeal) may be modified or revoked. Except as provided in IC 31-16-8-2, modification may be made only:
(1) upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; or
(2) upon a showing that:
(A) a party has been ordered to pay an amount in child support that differs by more than twenty percent (20%) from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines; and
(B) the order requested to be modified or revoked was issued at least twelve (12) months before the petition requesting modification was filed.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-17(a) part.]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1997–2020 · leading case: Kevin Gertiser v. Anne Stokes f/k/a Gertiser, 45 N.E.3d 363 (Ind. 2015).
Kevin Gertiser v. Anne Stokes f/k/a Gertiser, 45 N.E.3d 363 (Ind. 2015). “The fact that Anne still had those assets after she married Paul is therefore no “change” at all, let alone a “substantial and continuing” one that would warrant modification under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-3. Moreover, Anne testified that the investment accounts carry…”
Marriage of Zan v. Zan, 820 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Indiana Code section 31-15-7-3 does give a trial court the authority to modify maintenance agreements, but, as Judge Baker points out, this statute only allows trial courts to modify court-imposed maintenance and not approved maintenance settlement agreements.”
Haville v. Haville, 825 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. 2005). “" Because Indiana Code § 31-15-7-3 provides that spousal maintenance authorized by statute may be modified, the trial court lacked the authority to order maintenance payments that were not subject to modification.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 920 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. 2010). “But of course, modifications of spousal maintenance are expressly permitted by Ind.Code § 31-15-7-3 (2008). We thus turn to whether the trial court had the authority to modify Gina's lien to allow Robert to finance his divorcee obligations.”
Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl, 15 N.E.3d 1006 (Ind. 2014). “” I.C. § 31-15-7-3(1). In other *1015 words, Barbara was not seeking to set aside the judgment under Trial Rule 60(B), but only to modify its terms pursuant to the incapacity maintenance statute.”
Sean Thomas Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan, 972 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. 2012). “” I.C. § 31-15-7-3(1); see also Voigt, 670 N.”
Marjorie O. Lesley v. Robert T. Lesley, 6 N.E.3d 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Ind. Code § 31-15-7-3 . Turning to the facts at hand, Wife requested incapacity maintenance pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-2(1).”
Cox v. Cox, 882 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Code § 31-16-8-1 to cover general spousal maintenance orders rather than maintenance ordered as part of a child support proceeding, that the applicable statute would seem to be Ind.Code § 31-15-7-3. [4] In any event, Ind.”
Christine Banks v. Timothy R. Banks, 980 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Christine originally was awarded spousal maintenance on the basis of a physical incapacity that materially affected her ability to support herself, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-2(1).”
McCormick v. McCormick, 780 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “IC § 31-15-7-3(1) (West 1998); see also Boruff v.”
Pala v. Loubser, 943 N.E.2d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-3 governs the modification or revocation of an order of maintenance and provides in part: *405 Provisions of an order with respect to maintenance ordered under section 1 of this chapter .”
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 875 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 31-15-7-3. The trial court considers the factors underlying the original maintenance award in determining whether a substantial change in circumstances occurred, which are: the financial resources of the party seeking to continue maintenance, the standard of living established…”
Ind. Code § 31-15-7-3(1): 6 cases
Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl, 15 N.E.3d 1006 (Ind. 2014). “” I.C. § 31-15-7-3(1). In other *1015 words, Barbara was not seeking to set aside the judgment under Trial Rule 60(B), but only to modify its terms pursuant to the incapacity maintenance statute.”
Sean Thomas Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan, 972 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. 2012). “” I.C. § 31-15-7-3(1); see also Voigt, 670 N.”
Kevin Gertiser v. Anne Stokes f/k/a Gertiser, 45 N.E.3d 363 (Ind. 2015). “The fact that Anne still had those assets after she married Paul is therefore no “change” at all, let alone a “substantial and continuing” one that would warrant modification under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-3. Moreover, Anne testified that the investment accounts carry…”
Christine Banks v. Timothy R. Banks, 980 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Christine originally was awarded spousal maintenance on the basis of a physical incapacity that materially affected her ability to support herself, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-2(1).”
McCormick v. McCormick, 780 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “IC § 31-15-7-3(1) (West 1998); see also Boruff v.”
Ind. Code § 31-15-7-3(2)(A): 1 case
Kevin Gertiser v. Anne Stokes f/k/a Gertiser, 45 N.E.3d 363 (Ind. 2015). “The fact that Anne still had those assets after she married Paul is therefore no “change” at all, let alone a “substantial and continuing” one that would warrant modification under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-3. Moreover, Anne testified that the investment accounts carry…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.