May, J.
Jason L. Hill (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s ruling on his motion to correct error. Father argues the court erred by not crediting monies his daughter S.H. (“Daughter”) received in connection with his receipt of social security disability benefits toward his obligation for Daughter’s uninsured medical expenses. We reverse and remand with instructions.
….
Father and the State agree that Father’s unpaid medical debt as of the date of the lump sum payment, May 14, 2018, should be considered part of Father’s then-existing child support arrearage. See Ind. Code § 31-9-2-125 (defining “support order” as “any judgment, decree, or order of child support, including medical support[.]”); and see Ind. Code § 31-16-6-4(a) (“A child support order must require either parent or both parents to provide medical support for the child through health insurance coverage if the health insurance coverage is available to the parent at a reasonable cost.”) [Footnote omitted.] We agree that Father’s $3,174.37 arrearage on Daughter’s medical expenses from 2015 is a child support arrearage. Because this arrearage existed at the time Daughter received the lump sum payment in May 2018, the trial court correctly applied the excess from the lump sum payment as a credit against Father’s $3,174.37 arrearage on Daughter’s medical expenses from 2015. See Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(G)(5)(b)(1) (“A lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage . . .”) (emphasis added).
However, the trial court refused to consider whether to apply the remaining surplus of $1,906.63 from the lump sum payment as a credit against the medical expenses for Daughter’s two hip surgeries in 2018. The trial court did not determine whether any of those surgical expenses were incurred before May 14, 2018, such that they would have been “an existing child support arrearage” to which the lump sum payment “shall be applied.” See id. If any of those expenses accrued before of the lump sum payment, then the $1,906.63 overpayment must be credited toward payment of that “existing child support arrearage.” See id. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s declaration that the $1,906.63 surplus from the lump sum payment was a gift from Father to Daughter, and we remand for the trial court to determine when in 2018 Daughter incurred medical expenses and to apply the surplus as a credit toward any medical expenses that existed as of May 14, 2018. See Ashworth v. Ehrgott, 934 N.E.2d 152, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (remanding with instructions to credit father for children’s health insurance premium). If none of Daughter’s uninsured medical expenses in 2018 accrued before May 14, then the $1,906.63 surplus may again be denominated a gift from Father to Daughter. If only some of those expenses in 2018 accrued before May 14, then after those expenses are paid from the lump sum, any remaining money is a gift from Father to Daughter.
Next, we must determine whether the nine monthly overpayments of support that occurred from June 2018 to February 2019 can be applied to any of Daughter’s uninsured medical expenses that accrued in 2018 after May 14. The trial court declined to apply any of these monthly overpayments against the medical expenses that accrued for the two hip surgeries in 2018.
The State argues the trial court had discretion to not apply the excess monthly child support paid against the unpaid medical expenses arrearage because, unlike Child Support Guideline 3(G)(5)(b)(1), which says the court “shall” apply excess lump sum benefits against an arrearage, Child Support Guideline 3(G)(5)(b)(2) provides the court “may” do so: “Application of current Social Security Disability benefits. The amount of the benefit which exceeds the child support order may be treated as an ongoing credit toward an existing arrearage.” Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(2) (emphasis added).
However, the Commentary to Guideline 3G states: “The language in Guideline 3.G.5.b.2 directs that the excess SSD benefit may be applied as payment toward an existing arrearage. Once the arrearage is satisfied, any portion of the SSD benefit that exceeds the current support obligation is considered a gratuity.” Accordingly, while the Guideline uses the term “may,” the Commentary by the drafters of the Guideline indicate that any current benefit in excess of the current support obligation is a gratuity only after “the arrearage is satisfied[.]” Commentary to Guideline 3(G).
….
Therefore, to the extent Father overpaid his monthly child support obligation after Daughter incurred medical debt in 2018, that overpayment must be credited toward any medical debt that existed on the date of the overpayment. See id. An overpayment can be considered a gift to Daughter only if the overpayment: (1) preceded Daughter incurring medical debt; or (2) came after all medical debt arrearage had been paid. However, as we noted earlier, the trial court did not determine, and the parties have not directed us to evidence of, when in 2018 Daughter accrued these uninsured medical expenses for hip surgeries.
To the extent Father made the overpayments after any portion of the medical debt accrued, the overpayments should be credited towards the medical debt. See Anderson, 955 N.E.2d at 241. Therefore, we remand with instructions for the trial court to determine the amount of Father’s overpayment, whether in the form of a lump sum payment or monthly payments, made after Daughter accrued the medical debts in 2018 and to apportion that overpayment toward Father’s responsibility for the debt. At a minimum, any overpayment from the two payments Daughter received in 2019, before she turned eighteen, should be credited toward the unpaid medical debt. See Fritts v. Fritts, 28 N.E.3d 258, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (remanding for trial court to correct arrearage calculation), reh’g denied.
Conclusion
The trial court erred by not first determining when in 2018 Daughter incurred medical debts related to her two hip surgeries. Father’s responsibility for that medical debt made up a part of Father’s child support arrearage as of the dates when Daughter accrued the debts. Consequently, any overpayment of Father’s child support obligation that occurred after Daughter incurred the 2018 medical debt should be credited toward Father’s obligation for the medical debt. Therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court for further factfinding and a new final order that is consistent with the law discussed herein.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.