An Indiana dentist who challenged a child support order of $964 a week has won a partial victory before the Indiana Court of Appeals. Christopher Chisler, a dentist and owner of several dental practices, argued that the trial court overstated his income by counting distributions from his businesses and by treating a $130,000 Tesla Cybertruck purchased by one of his companies as a personal benefit. The appeals court agreed with him on the vehicle issue, but it upheld much of the lower court’s approach to his income and support calculation. The case, Christopher T. Chisler v. Krysta Chisler, arose after Chisler and Krysta Chisler divorced in 2022. Their marriage produced one child, and the dispute later focused on whether Chisler’s business income, company-purchased vehicles and other financial arrangements should count toward his child support obligation. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed parts of the support order, reversed others and sent the case back for further proceedings, as reported by Justia U.S. Law and The Indiana Lawyer. Read more about it here:
The dispute over income
Chisler owns or has interests in several dental businesses, including Greenwood Modern Dentistry, Fishers Modern Dentistry, Midwest Dental Partners and C&C Holdings LLC. The trial court calculated his weekly income at $5,950, a figure that included distributions from his businesses and the value of company-provided vehicles.On appeal, Chisler challenged several elements of that calculation. He argued that the court wrongly treated distributions from his businesses as income, improperly denied certain deductions, and wrongly included the Cybertruck as part of his available resources, as per the reports. He also disputed the court’s handling of health insurance premiums, arrears, educational expenses and attorney fees.The appeals court found sufficient grounds to include business distributions in his income calculation. It also rejected some of the deductions Chisler sought, while affirming the overall structure and amount of the child support order. But the court did not accept every part of the trial court’s reasoning, particularly on the Cybertruck.
The $130,000 Cybertruck issue
One of the most unusual questions in the case involved a Tesla Cybertruck purchased by Fishers Modern Dentistry for $130,000. The trial court included the value of that vehicle in Chisler’s income for child support purposes, treating it as a benefit provided by his company.The Court of Appeals reversed that part of the ruling. It found that the trial court had not adequately explained why the Cybertruck should be counted as income or as a personal benefit to Chisler. The court remanded the issue for a fresh assessment of whether the vehicle actually provided Chisler with a measurable economic benefit that should be included in his child support calculation.This matters because business purchases can serve different purposes. A company vehicle may be a legitimate business expense, a personal perk, or something in between. The appeals court did not say the Cybertruck could never count toward Chisler’s income. It said the trial court needed to explain and support that conclusion more clearly before including it.
Representative image
What the court upheld
The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision to include distributions from Chisler’s businesses in his income. That finding is significant because it means a parent cannot necessarily avoid child support obligations by keeping compensation in a company rather than taking it as salary.The court also denied some of the deductions Chisler wanted, while affirming the overall structure and amount of the child support order. In practical terms, the weekly support amount of $964 was not overturned. The case will instead return to the trial court to revisit specific calculations, including the vehicle benefit, the health insurance credit, capital expenditure deductions and educational contributions.The court also addressed Chisler’s challenge to the arrears payment schedule. The appeals court found sufficient grounds to support the trial court’s approach to his ability to pay arrears, while remanding for adjustments connected to the other recalculations.
Why the case matters
The decision shows how child support cases can become complicated when a parent owns a business. Income is not always a simple salary figure. It can include distributions, company benefits, retained earnings and other financial arrangements that may affect a parent’s real ability to pay.The Cybertruck issue also illustrates the need for courts to distinguish between business expenses and personal benefits. A vehicle bought by a company may be used for work, but it may also provide a parent with personal transportation, status or savings that would otherwise come out of personal income. The appeals court’s remand requires the trial court to make that distinction with evidence and reasoning.For parents in similar disputes, the ruling offers two lessons. First, courts may look beyond a salary figure when calculating support. Second, a parent challenging an income calculation must show why a particular benefit or deduction should be treated differently, rather than simply arguing that the number is too high.
A partial win, not a full reversal
Chisler did not persuade the appeals court to throw out the child support order. The court affirmed much of the trial court’s calculation and left the overall support framework intact. But he did succeed in forcing a closer look at the Cybertruck and several other financial questions.The case now returns to the Hancock Circuit Court for further proceedings. The trial court must reconsider the vehicle benefit, health insurance credit, capital expenditure deductions and educational contributions, while applying the appeals court’s guidance on business distributions and arrears.The outcome is a reminder that child support law often turns on detailed financial evidence. In this case, the difference between a company expense and a personal benefit could affect how much a father pays each week. The Indiana Court of Appeals has now made clear that such questions deserve a careful, well-supported answer.
