19.] Considering the factual basis underlying the testimony of each party, a resolution of this credibility dispute was a matter for the referee as the fact finder. “[A]s we have often not 2d 106, 109 (1978) (allowing father to receive credit for mortgage payments based on the agreement of the parties); Payson v. Payson, 442 N.E.2d 1123, 1129 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (allowing father to receive credit for rent payments made after the support decree based on the agreement of the parties); Hodge v. Hodge, 338 So.2d 161, 162 (La.Ct.App.1976) (allowing the father to make mortgage payments to mortgage holder in partial satisfaction of child support based upon an agreement of the parties). Contra Abercrombie v. Abercrombie, 434 So.2d 1139, 1142 (La.Ct.App.1983), writ denied, 440 So.2d 760 (La.1983) (<HOLDING>). 5 . We have recognized, in a variety of
holding that the department was not entitled to reimbursement for support payments when the fathers housing payments during the pendency of the divorcee exceeded what was due even though it augmented the fathers own equity holding that it was within the courts discretion to credit fathers arrearages for onehalf of the mortgage payments that he made holding that the court erred in failing to credit fathers child support account for the entire amount that he paid for the mothers mortgage holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation holding that mortgage payments should not be regarded as child support because it was a contractual legal obligation that built fathers equity