CourtListener opinion 10762979

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

FILED
 Dec 18 2024, 8:59 am

 CLERK
 Indiana Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 and Tax Court

 IN THE

 Court of Appeals of Indiana
 Leesa A. Gatton,
 Appellant-Respondent

 v.

 Robert D. Gatton,
 Appellee-Petitioner

 December 18, 2024
 Court of Appeals Case No.
 24A-DN-716
 Appeal from the Allen Circuit Court
 The Honorable Jesus R. Treviño, Magistrate
 Trial Court Cause No.
 02C01-2212-DN-1447

 Opinion by Senior Judge Crone
 Judges Bradford and Tavitas concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 1 of 21
 Crone, Senior Judge.

 Case Summary
[1] Following the trial court's dissolution of the marriage between Leesa A. Gatton

 (Wife) and Robert D. Gatton (Husband), Wife argues that the trial court erred

 in its treatment of Husband's pension and in failing to include Husband's

 individual retirement account (IRA) in the marital estate. Finding no reversible

 error, we affirm.

 Facts and Procedural History 1
[2] Husband and Wife were married in March 2010. No children were born of the

 marriage. Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage on December 20,

 2022. The parties filed a stipulated inventory of all assets and liabilities that

 existed at the time of filing. The parties agreed on the values and distribution of

 most of the assets, with the exception of the value of Husband's pension and

 one of Wife's two pensions and the distribution of the net proceeds from the

 sale of the marital residence. Wife requested findings pursuant to Indiana Trial

 Rule 52(A) and filed a pretrial brief. An evidentiary hearing was held on

 October 24, 2023. The trial court gave the parties until November 27 to submit

 proposed findings. Only Husband did so.

 1
 We remind Wife's counsel that facts in an appellant's brief "shall be stated in accordance with the standard
 of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed" and "shall not be a witness by witness
 summary of the testimony." Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 2 of 21
 [3] In February 2024, the trial court issued a dissolution decree that reads in

 pertinent part as follows:

 I. FINDINGS OF FACT:

 ….

 B. MARITAL ESTATE

 5. Husband retired approximately five months after the parties'
 marriage on August 1, 2010 and started collecting $1,653.00 in
 gross monthly social security benefits and $3,020.00 in gross
 monthly Carpenter's Union pension benefits.

 6. Wife was employed at UPS during most of the marriage and
 was employed by TForce[ 2] at $23.90 per hour and at a 20-hour
 work week at the time the trial took place.

 ….

 8. In September 2008, Wife moved from her rental home on
 Harrison Street to a residence on Ardmore Avenue.

 9. Husband followed Wife from the Harrison Street residence to
 live in the Ardmore Avenue residence when she purchased it in
 September 2008.

 10. In January 2010, before Husband and Wife married, the City
 of Fort Wayne condemned a portion of Wife's real estate that
 abutted the Ardmore Avenue residence. The city paid Wife
 $22,000.00 for the real estate ….

 2
 The name of this entity is spelled "TForce," "Tforce," and "T-Force" at various points in the record.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 3 of 21
 11. On September 5, 2021, Husband was added to the Ardmore
 Avenue residence's title via a Quit Claim Deed from Wife to
 Wife and Husband. Also, in 2021, Wife and Husband executed a
 new 2.25% promissory note and associated $114,000.00
 mortgage with PNC Bank for the Ardmore Avenue residence.
 No additional sums were added to the prior balance as this
 transaction was completed to lower the prior interest rate and
 obtain a 15-year loan.

 12. The Ardmore Avenue residence was sold on January 27,
 2023, for a net sale price of $82,395.00. The net sale proceeds
 were placed in [Wife's counsel's] Trust Account subject to further
 agreement of the parties or court order. All funds remain in the
 Trust Account as of the trial date.

 13. Husband did contribute sweat equity to the remodeling and
 repair of the Ardmore Avenue residence. From at least 2013 until
 the date of separation in 2022, it is documented that Husband
 contributed financially towards maintaining the home and
 household expenses.

 14. A major point of contention during the trial was who would
 receive the net sale proceeds of the Ardmore Avenue residence.
 Husband wanted 100% of the Ardmore Avenue net sale proceeds
 given to him. Wife wanted 100% of the Ardmore Avenue net sale
 proceeds given to her.

 15. When Husband got divorced from his prior wife on
 November 22, 2008, he was ordered to pay one-third (1/3) of his
 son Christopher's post-secondary education expenses. The
 parties stipulated to $31,119.00 as the amount outstanding by
 way of a student loan associated with this expense.

 16. Husband and Wife both used Dulin, Ward & DeWald to
 appraise all pensions and stipulated to their admissibility subject
 to cross-examination and argument.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 4 of 21
 17. Husband's appraisal of his Carpenter Union's Pension
 established that its vested value on the date of filing was
 $421,265.00 and that the value earned after the parties married
 on March 14, 2010 was $5,062.00 ….

 ….

 23. Regarding Wife's T-Force Pension, there is no dispute that
 this pension accrued during the marriage.… [T]he Court finds the
 reasonable value of Wife's T-Force Freight monthly pension
 benefit at $24,690.00 and includes it at that value in the parties'
 marital estate.

 24. Regarding Husband's Carpenter's Union Pension, the only
 dispute relates to whether the Court includes just the marital
 coverture portion of this Pension in the marital estate or includes
 the value of the entire pension benefit. After taking into
 consideration the entire value of the pension benefit, trial courts
 in Indiana have the discretion to include just the marital
 coverture portion of a party's pension interest in its identification
 of the assets and debts within the marital estate. A number of
 Indiana cases emphasize that historical treatment and exercise of
 discretion.… This line of cases concluded in Morey v. Morey, 49
 [N.E.3d] 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) in which Judge Mathias
 stated, "In Indiana, trial courts have historically exercised their
 discretion to apply the coverture fraction … formula when
 allocating and distributing pension and retirement benefits in
 dissolution of marriage proceedings[.]" Id. [at] 1071. Mathias
 went on to state, "Division of marital assets and the application
 of the coverture fraction formula in a dissolution of marriage
 proceeding is a multi-step process… Importantly, the pre-marital
 portion of the benefit is then set aside for the spouse who
 acquired it, for distribution outside of the division of the assets in
 the marital pot." Id. [at] 1071, 1072.

 In the present case, Valerie McHarry, the pension valuation
 professional hired by Wife's counsel, concluded her valuation of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 5 of 21
 Husband's Carpenters Union Pension … by stating specifically in
 her report, "Coverture calculation using coverture fraction
 formula." McHarry further identified that Husband retired 140
 days after the parties married and that the coverture percentage
 was 1.2%. In other words, 98.8% of Husband's Pension accrued
 before the parties' marriage. McHarry then identified the marital
 coverture value at $5,061.98 ($5,062 rounded up). The total value
 of Husband's Pension was $421,265.00, an amount which is
 more than double the value of the entire marital estate.

 Husband's Carpenters Union Pension had been an aspect of
 Husband's prior dissolution of marriage action in this same
 Court. More specifically, … this Court granted Husband's prior
 dissolution of marriage on November 21, 2008. Husband's prior
 marriage was 30 years in duration and encompassed almost the
 entire time of Husband's membership in the Carpenters Union
 which began in 1976. This Court granted Husband's prior wife a
 20% Separate Interest by Qualified Domestic Relations Order in
 this Carpenters Union Pension.…

 The parties enjoyed the benefit of Husband's receipt of his
 Carpenters Union Pension monthly benefit which he began
 receiving in August 2010. For 12 years of the marriage, this
 pension benefit helped Husband contribute to the family's
 finances until he filed this dissolution of marriage action in
 December 2022.

 After taking into consideration the entire value of Husband's
 pension benefit, along with Indiana case law, this Court's prior
 QDRO relating to the same Pension, and Husband's receipt of
 this pension benefit for 12 years of the parties' marriage, this
 Court finds it is a reasonable exercise of its discretion to only
 include the marital coverture portion of Husband's Carpenters
 Union Pension monthly benefit valued at $5,062.

 ….

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 6 of 21
 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT

 C. DIVISION OF MARITAL ESTATE:

 ….

 28. Pursuant to I.C. 31-15-7-4(b), the trial court "shall divide the
 property in a just and reasonable manner." When a trial court
 divides the marital pot, it begins with the presumption that an
 equal division between the parties is just and reasonable. I.C. 31-
 15-7-5. The party seeking to rebut the presumption of an equal
 division of marital property bears the burden of proof.…

 ….

 32. In dissolution actions, Indiana follows the "one pot" theory,
 meaning that all marital property is included in the marital pot
 for division, regardless of whether it was owned by one spouse
 before marriage, acquired by one spouse after the marriage and
 before final separation, or acquired through the joint efforts of
 both. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a); Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d
 108, 110 (Ind. [Ct.] App. 2014). Including all marital assets in the
 marital pot ensures that the trial court will first determine the
 value of each asset before endeavoring to divide the property. Id.
 "While the trial court may decide to award a particular asset
 solely to one spouse as part of its just and reasonable property
 division, it must first include the asset in its consideration of the
 marital estate to be divided." Id. Ahls v. Ahls, 52 N.E.3d 797 (Ind.
 [Ct.] App. 2016); see also, Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721
 (Ind. [Ct.] App. 2015); Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. [Ct.]
 App. 2015). Specifically, this Court has the discretion to consider
 the entire value of a [party's] pension but just include the marital
 coverture portion in its marital estate subject to division, Morey v.
 Morey, 49 N.E.[3d] 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), Roetter v. Roetter,
 182 N.E.3d 221 (Ind. 2022).

 33. Both parties were generally employed throughout their
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 7 of 21
 marriage. Wife accumulated several retirement benefits as
 stipulated by the parties and as found by this Court, and the
 parties accumulated equity in the former marital residence which
 was sold as an aspect of this dissolution action. Wife purchased
 the marital residence … in 2008 for $81,000.00. Wife's down
 payment was approximately $3,000.00. Husband, as a carpenter,
 performed a number of repairs or improvements to this residence,
 including the conversion of a porch into a master bedroom. Both
 parties contributed financially to the costs of materials for these
 repairs and improvements, Wife from an inheritance she received
 from her father's death and Husband from his earnings. This
 residence was sold during these proceedings and the parties
 received net sales proceeds of $82,394.00. Both parties also
 contributed to the living expenses. Husband was able to
 document his contributions for at least 10 years from April 2013
 through December 2022 when this dissolution action was filed.
 Prior to Husband being added to the deed of the marital
 residence in 2021, Wife was able to refinance the initial mortgage
 a number of times. On two occasions, she refinanced for more
 money than was owing on the existing mortgage so that she
 could pay off a car loan and contribute to the payment of her
 daughter's wedding. Husband received no proceeds from any of
 these refinancings. Husband also cashed in his 401(k) in 2020 to
 assist the parties in paying taxes.

 34. Prior to the parties' marriage, the parties purchased the
 marital residence in Wife's name in 2008. At least some of Wife's
 inheritance of $20,000.00 was used to assist in the purchase of
 that residence and in Husband's conversion of a porch into a
 master bedroom. The Court was not presented information
 regarding the amount of this inheritance which remained on the
 date the parties married on March 17, 2010. Husband had
 accrued 98.8% of a pension benefit with his Carpenters Union
 prior to the parties' marriage. Husband had an unspecified
 liability at the time of the marriage relating to his son's (from his
 prior marriage) college education. While Husband did not know
 the amount he owned on the date of the marriage, he did indicate

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 8 of 21
 that during the marriage he had paid upwards of $70,000.00
 toward these college expenses while still owing the stipulated
 balance as of the date of the filing ($31,119).

 35. At the time of the trial, Husband was 67 years old … and
 Wife was 66 years old …. Husband is retired from the Carpenters
 Union, unemployed, and recovering from two recent but separate
 cancer diagnoses, January 2022 and July 2023. Wife is employed
 on a part-time basis with T-Force Freight, receives several
 retirement benefits as well as her Social Security retirement
 benefit but has chosen not to commence her T-Force Freight
 pension, previously discussed.

 36. The parties' future income earning abilities are not likely to
 change from their present economic circumstances, assuming
 Husband survives and Wife does not fully retire.

 37. Neither party alleged dissipation or improper disposition of
 marital property.

 38. As an aspect of Husband's request to this Court to only
 include the marital coverture value of his Carpenters Union
 Pension, Husband indicated he would waive receipt of any
 property equalization judgment. The Court will discuss this effort
 at waiver later in this Decree.

 39. After considering and relating all of the testimony and
 evidence to the statutory considerations (and including only the
 coverture value of Husband's Pension), the Court concludes that
 neither party has rebutted the statutory presumption of an equal
 division of the marital estate.

 Appealed Order at 1-10 (underlining and citations to exhibits omitted).

[4] The trial court assigned certain assets and liabilities to Wife, including 100% of

 her T-Force pension valued at $24,690.00. The court also assigned certain assets
 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 9 of 21
 and liabilities to Husband, including 100% of the net proceeds from the sale of

the marital residence valued at $82,295.00, 100% of the coverture value of his

Carpenter's Union pension valued at $5,062.00, and 100% of the

aforementioned student loan valued at negative $31,119.00. The court then

made the following findings:

 42. The net marital estate of the parties subject to the above
 division equals $153,185.00. Husband's receipt of $53,415.00 of
 the net marital estate equals his receipt of 35% of that estate.
 Wife's receipt of the $99,770.00 of the net marital estate equals
 her receipt of 65% of that estate.

 ….

 50. In order to equalize the net marital estate consistent with the
 Court's determination that neither party had rebutted the
 presumption of an equal division of the marital estate, the Court
 would need to identify a property equalization judgment owing
 from Wife to Husband of $23,177.50. Even if the Court excluded
 the stipulated student loan owing by Husband of $31,119.00 from
 his award of assets and debts, Wife would still owe Husband a
 property equalization amount of approximately $7,600.00. After
 reviewing the award of assets to Wife herein, the only way that
 this Court could satisfy any equalization judgment owing from
 Wife to Husband would be to award Husband an interest in
 either Wife's UPS Pension which she is presently receiving
 [and/or] a percentage interest in her T-Force Freight Pension
 which she has yet to commence. Husband specifically stated in
 response to questioning from his counsel that if the Court only
 included the coverture value of his pension in the marital
 estate, he did not want to receive any equalization judgment or
 any interest in Wife's pension or other retirement assets. This
 Court, taking into consideration Wife's Verified Financial
 Disclosure, her income and other present economic

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 10 of 21
 circumstances, and Husband's explicit testimony effectively
 waiving any claim to a property equalization judgment or the
 receipt of any of Wife's retirement assets to balance the
 distribution of the marital estate, now orders that there is no
 property equalization judgment entered in this matter,
 notwithstanding the unequal distribution of assets and debts as
 herein before identified.

 51. The net sale proceeds from the sale of the parties' former
 marital residence of $82,295, presently held in trust with Wife's
 counsel's office, having been awarded to Husband herein, shall
 be distributed by Wife's counsel to Husband and his counsel
 within seven (7) days of this Decree.

 Id. at 11-14.

[5] Wife filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. This appeal

 ensued.

 Discussion and Decision

 Section 1 – The trial court should have included the entire
 present value of Husband's pension in the marital pot, but it
 did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate.
[6] Wife first contends that the trial court erred in its purportedly "inconsistent

 treatment" of Husband's pension, Husband's student loan obligation, and the

 net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. Appellant's Br. at 19. Wife

 characterizes the sale proceeds as her "pre-marital equity in the real estate she

 brought into the marriage[.]" Id. But Husband points out that "there was no

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 11 of 21
 testimony that on the date of the marriage, Wife had premarital equity of a

 specific dollar amount." Appellee's Br. at 10. Husband further observes that he

 provided testimony which was not refuted by Wife that he was
 involved in the purchase of this real estate in 2008, did repairs
 and improvements to it prior to it being purchased in order that
 the purchase could go through, and made improvements to that
 real estate between the date of purchase and the date of marriage
 which might have been responsible for an increase in the value of
 this real estate, hence equity, prior to the parties' marriage.

 Id. Accordingly, we do not consider Wife's argument as it pertains to the sale

 proceeds.

[7] Our well-settled standard of review, which Wife neglected to include in the

 argument section of her brief as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b),

 provides that a trial court has broad discretion in valuing and dividing marital

 property. Baglan v. Baglan, 137 N.E.3d 271, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). We

 review a trial court's determination for an abuse of that discretion, and, so long

 as sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences support it, the court has not

 abused its discretion. Id. 3 In other words, we will not reverse unless the trial

 court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

 circumstances before it. Id. In reviewing a trial court's disposition of marital

 assets, we focus on what the court did and not on what it could have done.

 3
 Wife raises several disparate arguments regarding the trial court's treatment of Husband's pension, all of
 which are variations on the central theme that the court abused its discretion in this regard.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 12 of 21
 Alifimoff v. Stuart, 192 N.E.3d 987, 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied (2023).

 "Although the facts and reasonable inferences might allow for a different

 conclusion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court." Id.

[8] Where, as here, the trial court issued findings and conclusions at a party's

 request, we first determine whether the evidence supports the findings and then

 determine whether the findings support the judgment. Quinn v. Quinn, 62

 N.E.3d 1212, 1220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). "The trial court's findings are

 controlling unless the record includes no facts to support them either directly or

 by inference." Id. "We neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness

 credibility." Barton, 47 N.E.3d at 373. "We set aside a trial court's judgment

 only if it is clearly erroneous." Quinn, 62 N.E.3d at 1220. Clear error occurs

 when our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment leaves us

 firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. Wife does not specifically

 challenge any of the trial court's predicate findings.

[9] Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4 governs the division of marital property, which

 "includes both assets and liabilities." McCord v. McCord, 852 N.E.2d 35, 45 (Ind.

 Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. The statute reads in relevant part as follows:

 (a) In an action for dissolution of marriage …, the court shall
 divide the property of the parties, whether:

 (1) owned by either spouse before the marriage;

 (2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right:

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 13 of 21
 (A) after the marriage; and

 (B) before final separation of the parties; or

 (3) acquired by their joint efforts.

 (b) The court shall divide the property in a just and reasonable
 manner by:

 (1) division of the property in kind;

 (2) setting the property or parts of the property over to one
 (1) of the spouses and requiring either spouse to pay an
 amount, either in gross or in installments, that is just and
 proper;

 (3) ordering the sale of the property under such conditions
 as the court prescribes and dividing the proceeds of the
 sale; or

 (4) ordering the distribution of benefits described in IC 31-
 9-2-98(b)(2) or IC 31-9-2-98(b)(3)[ 4] that are payable after
 the dissolution of marriage, by setting aside to either of the

4
 Indiana Code Section 31-9-2-98(b) states in pertinent part,

 "Property", for purposes of IC 31-15 …, means all the assets of either party or both parties,
 including:

 …

 (2) the right to receive pension or retirement benefits that are not forfeited upon termination of
 employment or that are vested (as defined in Section 411 of the Internal Revenue Code) but that
 are payable after the dissolution of marriage; and

 (3) the right to receive disposable retired or retainer pay (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1408(a))
 acquired during the marriage that is or may be payable after the dissolution of marriage.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 14 of 21
 parties a percentage of those payments either by
 assignment or in kind at the time of receipt.

 Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4.

[10] The trial court "shall presume that an equal division of the marital property

 between the parties is just and reasonable." Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5.

 However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who
 presents relevant evidence, including evidence concerning the
 following factors, that an equal division would not be just and
 reasonable:

 (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of
 the property, regardless of whether the contribution was
 income producing.

 (2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each
 spouse:

 (A) before the marriage; or

 (B) through inheritance or gift.

 (3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time
 the disposition of the property is to become effective,
 including the desirability of awarding the family residence
 or the right to dwell in the family residence for such
 periods as the court considers just to the spouse having
 custody of any children.

 (4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as
 related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 15 of 21
 (5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related
 to:

 (A) a final division of property; and

 (B) a final determination of the property
 rights of the parties.

 Id.

[11] As this Court explained in Falatovics,

 It is well settled that in a dissolution action, all marital property
 goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by
 either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after
 the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or
 acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a); Beard v.
 Beard, 758 N.E.2d 1019, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied
 (2002). For purposes of dissolution, property means "all the
 assets of either party or both parties." Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98
 (emphasis added). "The requirement that all marital assets be
 placed in the marital pot is meant to insure that the trial court
 first determines that value before endeavoring to divide
 property." Montgomery v. Faust, 910 N.E.2d 234, 238 (Ind. Ct.
 App. 2009). "Indiana's ‘one pot' theory prohibits the exclusion of
 any asset in which a party has a vested interest from the scope of
 the trial court's power to divide and award." Wanner v. Hutchcroft,
 888 N.E.2d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). While the trial court
 may decide to award a particular asset solely to one spouse as
 part of its just and reasonable property division, it must first
 include the asset in its consideration of the marital estate to be
 divided. Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
 The systematic exclusion of any marital asset from the marital
 pot is erroneous. Wilson v. Wilson, 409 N.E.2d 1169, 1173 (Ind.
 Ct. App. 1980).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 16 of 21
 15 N.E.3d at 110.

[12] Here, Wife takes issue with the trial court's decision to include only the

 coverture portion of Husband's pension in the marital pot while including the

 date-of-filing value of Husband's student loan obligation, characterizing this as

 "inconsistent treatment." Appellant's Br. at 19. 5 As for Wife's inconsistent-

 treatment claim, Husband correctly observes that "[t]he parties stipulated that

 [he] had a specific student loan obligation owing by him of $31,119[,]" which

 "had to be included in the trial court's marital estate because the parties

 stipulated that it existed on the date of filing." Appellee's Br. at 9. Husband

 further observes that, "[o]ther than conjecture, neither Wife, nor her counsel,

 nor Husband provided information as to what Husband may have owed on that

 student loan obligation on the date of the marriage, if anything." Id. Husband

 then asserts, "In the absence of information regarding the date of marriage

 balance, the trial court could not exercise its discretion on this particular debt to

 provide any relief to Wife even if it thought that appropriate." Id. We must

 agree.

[13] That said, we also must agree with Wife's claim that the trial court erred in

 including only the coverture portion of Husband's pension in the marital pot. In

 doing so, the trial court incorrectly relied on Morey, 49 N.E.3d 1065, which runs

 5
 Wife asserts that "[t]he trial court's failure to apply a consistent approach to [these] items denied Wife equal
 application and protection of Indiana laws." Appellant's Br. at 16. Wife fails to develop an argument in
 support of this apparent allusion to Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 17 of 21
 afoul of Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4 in stating that the premarital portion of

 an asset should be excluded from the marital pot. See Morey, 49 N.E.3d at 1071

 ("First, the trial court should identify what assets should be segregated from the

 marital pot by operation of law. The coverture fraction formula at issue here is

 just one method that allows the spouse who acquired the asset to segregate

 what might otherwise be considered marital property from the marital pot."). 6

 Section 31-15-7-4 says in no uncertain terms that "the court shall divide the

 property of the parties, whether … owned by either spouse before the marriage

 [or] acquired by either spouse in his or her own right" after the marriage and

 before final separation.

[14] As mandated by statute, all assets must be included in the marital pot. If one of

 the assets is a retirement asset, then the coverture fraction formula is a useful

 means of determining which portion of the asset accrued prior to the marriage

 and which portion accrued after the marriage. 7 But it is unhelpful to view the

 premarital portion of the asset as not being subject to division. It is instead more

 helpful to view the entire retirement asset as being subject to division and the

 coverture fraction as a tool in helping a trial court determine how to distribute

 6
 In Barton, this author stated that "the coverture fraction formula is applied to determine what portion of a
 retirement asset is subject to division." 47 N.E.3d at 380. While this is technically incorrect, the coverture
 fraction formula is a factor the trial court may utilize in determining what constitutes an equitable division of
 all of the marital assets.
 7
 "Under this methodology, the value of the retirement plan is multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of
 which is the period of ti me during which the marriage existed (while pension rights were accruing) and the
 denominator is the total period of time during which pension rights accrued." Hardin v. Hardin, 964 N.E.2d
 247, 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (emphasis in Hardin omitted) (quoting In re Marriage of Preston, 704 N.E.2d
 1093, 1098 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 18 of 21
 the assets. See Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d at 729 ("The trial court included only the

 coverture fraction of Husband's pension in the marital estate for property

 division and failed to include the portion of his pension earned before the

 marriage. While the court may ultimately determine that the portion of

 Husband's pension earned prior to the marriage should be awarded solely to

 him, it must first include the asset in its consideration as to how the marital

 estate should be divided."). If the trial court uses the coverture fraction formula

 to award a greater share of the estate to a party, it should find the presumption

 of an equal distribution rebutted.

[15] For example: imagine a wife who has a vested retirement asset worth $500,000

 after working for twenty years. She married her husband fifteen years after she

 started working, and this retirement asset constitutes the vast majority of the

 marital assets. Using the coverture fraction formula, one-fourth of the $500,000

 retirement asset, or $125,000, accrued during the marriage, and the other three-

 fourths accrued prior to the marriage. If the trial court wishes to award the

 three-fourths to the wife, based on the coverture fraction formula, it should not

 "set aside" the three-fourths from the marital pot, but rather find the

 presumption of the equal division to be rebutted.

[16] Here, the trial court improperly excluded the premarital portion of Husband's

 pension from the marital pot, but it clearly considered that value in determining

 a just and reasonable division of the marital estate. Among other things, the

 trial court found that 98.8% of Husband's pension accrued before the parties'

 marriage, that the entire present value of Husband's pension is more than

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 19 of 21
 double the value of the entire marital estate, and that both parties enjoyed the

 benefit of that pension throughout their twelve-year marriage. Moreover, the

 court found that Husband was retired and recovering from two recent cancer

 diagnoses, whereas Wife was still employed and had not begun to collect her T-

 Force pension. Notwithstanding the trial court's error, based on these

 considerations and the court's consideration of other factors listed in Indiana

 Code Section 31-15-7-5, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion

 in dividing the marital estate as it did, i.e., in essentially awarding Husband the

 entire present value of his pension and in disposing of the remaining assets and

 liabilities as specified above. 8

 Section 2 – Any error in the trial court's failure to include
 Husband's IRA in the marital estate was harmless.
[17] At the evidentiary hearing, Husband testified that, on the date of filing, he had

 an IRA with "around three thousand" dollars that was not included on the

 "balance sheet" submitted to the trial court. Tr. Vol. 2 at 68. Husband's counsel

 told the court that his proposed findings would have "that I-R-A supplement."

 Id. at 69. But Husband's proposed findings did not mention the IRA, and Wife

 did not submit her own findings or notify the trial court about this omission.

 8
 Wife criticizes the trial court's "reliance" on the QDRO relating to Husband's pension. Appellant's Br. at
 35. But because this was only one of multiple factors that the court considered in determining how to divide
 the marital estate, we agree with Husband that the QDRO is "inconsequential" to the court's decision.
 Appellee's Br. at 15.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 20 of 21
 The trial court's decree did not mention the IRA, and neither did Wife's motion

 to correct error.

[18] On appeal, Wife argues that "the trial court's failure to include Husband's IRA

 in its Decree render[ed] the Decree unjust and unreasonable[.]" Appellant's Br.

 at 36. We disagree. Assuming for argument's sake that Wife did not waive this

 issue by failing to timely raise it with the trial court, we note that the value of

 the IRA is less than two percent of the value of the marital estate, and thus its

 omission was de minimis. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

[19] Affirmed.

 Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
 Daniel J. Borgmann
 Helmke Beams LLP
 Fort Wayne, Indiana

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
 Perry D. Shilts
 Shilts & Setlak, LLC
 Fort Wayne, Indiana

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-716 | December 18, 2024 Page 21 of 21