Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED Mar 08 2012, 8:50 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RUSSELL T. CLARKE, JR. MICHAEL G. RUPPERT Emswiller, Williams, Noland & Clarke, P.C. JAIMIE L. (ZIBROWSKI) CAIRNS Indianapolis, Indiana Ruppert & Schaefer, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JAMES R. LOCKHART, JR., ) ) Appellant-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. 29A02-1103-DR-208 ) LISA (LOCKHART) GUYER, ) ) Appellee-Petitioner. )

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March 8, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge On December 20, 2011, this court issued an unpublished memorandum decision in Lockhart v. Guyer, No. 29A02-1103-DR-208 (Ind.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.