Law & Justice

Indiana Appeals Court Partially Upholds Child Support Order, Orders Re‑examination of Company‑Purchased Cybertruck

By TOI World Desk

An Indiana Court of Appeals has partially upheld a child support order against dentist Christopher T. Chisler, who had challenged the calculation of his weekly support of $964. Chisler, who owns several dental practices, argued that the trial court had overstated his income by treating distributions from his businesses as income and by counting a $130,000 Tesla Cybertruck purchased by one of his companies as a personal benefit.

The appellate court agreed with Chisler on the vehicle issue, reversing the trial court’s inclusion of the Cybertruck’s value in his income. The court held that the trial court had not provided sufficient explanation for treating the vehicle as a personal benefit and remanded the case for a fresh assessment of whether the vehicle actually provided Chisler with a measurable economic benefit.

However, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to include business distributions in Chisler’s income and upheld most of the support calculation. It also denied several deductions that Chisler had sought and affirmed the overall structure and amount of the child support order. The weekly support amount of $964 was not overturned.

The case, Christopher T. Chisler v. Krysta Chisler, arose after the couple’s divorce in 2022 and the subsequent dispute over whether Chisler’s business income, company‑purchased vehicles and other financial arrangements should count toward his child support obligation. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to reconsider the vehicle benefit, health insurance credit, capital expenditure deductions and educational contributions while applying the court’s guidance on business distributions and arrears.

The decision highlights how child support calculations can involve complex financial arrangements and the importance of distinguishing between business expenses and personal benefits. The case will return to the Hancock Circuit Court for further proceedings.