MICHAEL W. PALMBY, Appellant-Petitioner,
KAREN M PALMBY, Appellee-Respondent
APPEAL FROM THE HENDRICKS SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable Stephenie LeMay-Luken, Judge. Cause No. 32D05-0801-DR-8.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRADLEY L. BANKS, Banks & Brower, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CYNTHIA P. HELFRICH, Brownsburg, Indiana.
RILEY, Judge. ROBB, J. and BRADFORD, J. concur.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Petitioner, Michael W. Palmby (Michael), appeals the trial court's denial of his Verified Petition for Revocation of Spousal Maintenance.
Michael raises three issues which we consolidate and restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Michael's request to revoke spousal maintenance which the parties had agreed upon and the trial court had incorporated in the final divorce decree.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Michael and Appellee-Respondent, Karen M. Palmby (Karen), were married on June 13, 1981 and divorced on May 2, 2008. During the marriage, three children were born, two of whom were emancipated at the time of the divorce. The youngest child was of college age and not emancipated for purposes of college expenses. During the course of their marriage, Michael and Karen ran a family business where they both worked. Karen had worked at a daycare center for a short time, but mainly stayed home with the children.
The Agreement of Property Settlement entered into by Michael and Karen at the time of the divorce contained a provision for spousal maintenance in favor of Karen, which read
9. Spousal Maintenance
a. Purpose and Intent of this Article: It is the mutual desire of the parties to provide a continuing measure of income for Wife, receiving party, after the dissolution of the parties' ...