James R. Lockhart, Jr. v. Lisa (Lockhart) Guyer (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
Mar 08 2012, 8:50 am
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
RUSSELL T. CLARKE, JR.
Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
MICHAEL G. RUPPERT
JAIMIE L. (ZIBROWSKI) CAIRNS
Ruppert & Schaefer, P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMES R. LOCKHART, JR.,
Appellant-Respondent,
vs.
LISA (LOCKHART) GUYER,
Appellee-Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 29A02-1103-DR-208
APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Daniel J. Pfleging, Judge
The Honorable William P. Greenaway, Magistrate
Cause No. 29D02-0605-DR-479
March 8, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
On December 20, 2011, this court issued an unpublished memorandum decision in
Lockhart v. Guyer, No. 29A02-1103-DR-208 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2011). In that
memorandum decision, we addressed the following three issues: (1) whether the trial court
erred when it granted Lisa (Lockhart) Guyer’s (“Wife) petition for accounting and
enforcement of the parties’ decree of dissolution; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to
include in its order the parties’ stipulation regarding James R. Lockhart, Jr.’s overpayment of
child support; and (3) whether the trial court erred in awarding Wife attorney fees in the
amount of $20,000.
Wife has filed a Petition for Rehearing regarding the following language, which was
included in our memorandum decision under issue three: “We instruct the trial court to enter
findings consistent with Indiana Code section 34–52–1–1(b), Professional Conduct Rule
1.5(a), and relevant caselaw regarding the basis, if any, for awarding attorney fees and for the
specific amount of such fees.” Lockhart, No. 29A02-1103-DR-208 at *7. We grant Wife’s
petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of removing the citation to Indiana Code section
34-52-1-1(b) in the above-quoted language and inserting in its place a citation to Indiana
Code section 31-15-10-1. We affirm our memorandum decision as to the remaining two
issues and in all other regards.
BAKER, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
