CourtListener opinion 4198662

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
 FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 24 2017, 9:41 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
 Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
 and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Derick W. Steele Mark A. Dabrowski
Kokomo, Indiana Kokomo, Indiana

 IN THE
 COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Gillespie, August 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
 34A05-1607-DR-1692
 v. Appeal from the Howard Superior
 Court
Anita Gillespie, The Honorable Brant J. Parry,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
 Trial Court Cause No.
 34D02-1509-DR-724

Altice, Judge.

 Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 1 of 9
 [1] James Gillespie (Husband) appeals from the trial court's order dissolving his

 marriage to Anita Gillespie (Wife). Husband raises the following issues on

 appeal:

 1. Was the trial court's finding that Husband had retained the
 parties' joint tax refund clearly erroneous?

 2. Did the trial court err in including Husband's pension in the
 marital estate?

 Wife cross-appeals and raises the following issue:

 3. Did the trial court err in excluding Husband's Wells Fargo
 account from the marital estate?

[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

 Facts & Procedural History

[3] Husband and Wife have been married twice. The first marriage took place in

 1979. Husband and Wife divorced for the first time in 1995, and Wife was

 awarded a portion of Husband's pension. After the 1995 divorce, Husband and

 Wife continued to cohabitate with the exception of a few brief periods of

 separation, none of which exceeded two months.

[4] Husband and Wife remarried in 2007, and Wife filed the instant petition for

 dissolution of marriage in September 2015. A final hearing was held on May

 16, 2016, and the trial court entered its final decree of dissolution on June 23,

 2016. In its decree, the trial court concluded that an equal distribution of

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 2 of 9
 property was just and reasonable. With respect to the portion of Husband's

 pension accruing prior to the date of separation in the 1995 dissolution, the trial

 court found that Husband and Wife would continue to receive the portions

 awarded in the 1995 decree. With respect to the amounts accruing after that

 date, the trial court awarded Wife fifty percent of the amount accruing from the

 date of the parties' cohabitation in 1995 through the date of Husband's

 retirement. The trial court did not, however, include the Wells Fargo

 investment accounts Husband and Wife held in their individual names among

 the assets it divided evenly, instead awarding Husband and Wife each the

 account held in his or her respective name without regard to the value thereof.

 The trial court awarded the bulk of the marital assets to Husband and ordered

 Husband to make an equalizing payment to Wife in the amount of $61,156.50.

 Husband was ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of $20,000 from a Harris Bank

 account he was awarded in the decree, and the remainder of the judgment was

 to be paid via a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) from Husband's

 Wells Fargo account. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be provided as

 necessary.

 Discussion & Decision

[1] The trial court in this case entered special findings of fact and conclusions

 thereon pursuant to Trial Rule 52(A). Our review of such findings and

 conclusions is two-tiered. In re Paternity of D.T., 6 N.E.3d 471, 474 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 2014). First, we consider whether the evidence supports the findings, and

 second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. The trial court's

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 3 of 9
 findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous—

 that is, where a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a

 mistake has been made. Id. In conducting our review, we will neither reweigh

 the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Instead, we will

 consider only the evidence favorable to the trial court's judgment. Id.

 1. Tax Return

[2] We first address Husband's argument that the trial court's finding that Husband

 had retained the entirety of the parties' 2015 tax refund is clearly erroneous.

 According to Husband, it is undisputed that Husband paid Wife $1000 of the

 $3747 tax refund. Husband's argument in this regard is not supported by the

 record. Wife testified that the parties filed taxes jointly and the refund was

 placed in Husband's account, and that she had not received any of those funds.

 This testimony was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Husband

 had kept the entire tax refund.

 2. Husband's Pension

[3] Husband also argues that the trial court erred in including his pension as a

 marital asset.

 In Indiana, it is well-established that all marital property goes
 into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either
 spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the
 marriage and prior to the parties' final separation, or acquired by
 their joint efforts. Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456, 460 (Ind. Ct. App.
 2007); see also Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a) (2008). This "one-pot"
 theory ensures that all of the parties' assets are subject to the trial
 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 4 of 9
 court's power to divide and award. Hill, 863 N.E.2d at 460.
 "While the trial court may ultimately determine that a particular
 asset should be awarded solely to one spouse, it must first include
 the asset in its consideration of the marital estate to be divided."
 Id.

 Trabucco v. Trabucco, 944 N.E.2d 544, 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[4] Furthermore, pursuant to I.C. § 31-15-7-5, the trial court is required to divide

 the marital estate in a just and reasonable manner. An equal division is

 presumed just and reasonable, but a party may rebut this presumption by

 presenting evidence that an equitable division would not be just and reasonable,

 including evidence concerning the following factors:

 (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.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 5 of 9
 (4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to
 the disposition or dissipation of their property.

 (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. A party challenging the trial court's division of marital property must

 overcome a strong presumption that the dissolution court "considered and

 complied with the applicable statute, and that presumption is one of the

 strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal." McCord v.

 McCord, 852 N.E.2d 35, 43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting DeSalle v. Gentry, 818

 N.E.2d 40, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)), trans. denied. Accordingly, we will reverse

 a property distribution only if there is no rational basis for the award, and

 although the circumstances may have justified a different property distribution,

 we may not substitute our judgment for that of the dissolution court. Augspurger

 v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[5] Husband seems to suggest that only the portion of the pension accruing during

 the second marriage should have been included in the marital estate, as opposed

 to the amount accruing from the date of the parties' cohabitation following the

 first dissolution. As set forth above, however, the trial court is statutorily

 required to include in the marital pot all property owned by either spouse prior

 to the date of final separation, even if that property was acquired prior to the

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 6 of 9
 marriage. See also Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)

 (trial court erred in failing to include the portion of the husband's pension

 earned before the marriage in the marital estate), trans. denied. Furthermore, to

 the extent Husband argues that an equal division of the pension was not just

 and reasonable, his arguments are nothing more than a request to reweigh the

 evidence and reach a different conclusion.1 The trial court's distribution of the

 pension was not an abuse of discretion.

 3. Wells Fargo Accounts

[6] On cross-appeal, Wife argues that the trial court erred by excluding Husband's

 Wells Fargo Account from the marital pot. We agree, and we further find that

 the trial court also erred in excluding Wife's Wells Fargo account.2

 1
 Husband's citation to In re Preston, 704 N.E.2d 1093, 1097-99 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), does not alter our
 conclusion. Preston involved a couple who, like the parties in this case, had been married twice. Also like
 this case, the husband's pension existed at the time of the first dissolution and was distributed by the first
 dissolution decree. Unlike this case, however, the trial court in the second dissolution effectively set aside the
 first decree's distribution of the pension, finding that the parties had erroneously concluded that the pension
 was not divisible at that time. The trial court then distributed the pension using a coverture fraction formula
 based on the combined length of the two marriages. This court determined that the trial court lacked
 authority to modify the first dissolution decree and that when a court elects to use a coverture fraction
 formula, it must be based on the length of the current marriage. Id. at 1099. The court in Preston did not hold
 that the portion of the pension accrued after the first dissolution but prior to the second marriage was not a
 divisible marital asset.
 The trial court in this case elected not to use a coverture fraction formula to distribute the pension, and
 Husband makes no argument that it was required to do so. Moreover, the trial court expressly indicated that
 it was not disturbing the prior distribution of the portion of the pension that accrued before the first
 dissolution. Accordingly, Preston is of little relevance here.
 2
 Husband claims that in Crider v. Crider, 26 N.E.3d 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), this court "found that the
 setting aside of [an] asset was within the trial court's discretion and the intent of the trial court was to equally
 divide the remaining assets." Reply Brief at 6. Crider does not support Husband's appellate arguments. As an
 initial matter, whether the trial court had erred in awarding the asset in question—the wife's inheritance—
 solely to the wife was not addressed in Crider, presumably because it was not raised by the parties. In any

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 7 of 9
 [7] The trial court specifically found that an equal division of the marital estate was

 just and reasonable. However, rather than including the value of Husband's

 and Wife's Wells Fargo accounts in the marital estate, the trial court awarded

 Husband and Wife each the account held in their respective name, and then

 proceeded to divide the remaining assets evenly. It did so without assigning a

 value to either of the Wells Fargo accounts, and the testimony at the final

 hearing suggests that there was a significant disparity in the value of the two

 accounts. Specifically, there was testimony that Wife's Wells Fargo account

 was worth approximately $60,000, while Husband's Wells Fargo was worth

 over $125,000.3 In sum, the trial court found that an equal division of the

 marital estate was just and reasonable, but it failed to effectuate an equal

 division when it excluded the Wells Fargo accounts from the marital estate.

 We therefore reverse the trial court's dissolution decree in this regard and

 remand with instructions to include both Wells Fargo accounts in the marital

 estate. We further instruct the trial court to enter findings either that an equal

 division of the entire marital estate is just and reasonable or that the

 event, the trial court in that case included the inheritance in the marital pot, but found that a deviation from
 the presumption in favor of an equal division of the marital estate was justified. See Crider, 26 N.E.3d at
 1048. The same cannot be said here, where the trial court specifically found that an equal division of the
 marital estate was just and reasonable.
 3
 We have not been provided with the exhibits presented at the final hearing, which would presumably
 establish the values of these accounts with greater precision. We also note that the trial court found that there
 was a loan against Husband's Wells Fargo account and ordered Husband to pay one hundred percent
 thereof, but it did not indicate how much was owed. The amount of the loan is not clear from the record
 before us.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 8 of 9
 presumption in favor of an equal division has been rebutted, and to recalculate

 the division of marital assets accordingly. See Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d at 729.

[8] Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

[9] Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1607-DR-1692 | August 24, 2017 Page 9 of 9