CourtListener opinion 4426292

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

MEMORANDUM DECISION
 Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
 this Memorandum Decision shall not be Aug 16 2019, 8:39 am
 regarded as precedent or cited before any
 CLERK
 court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

 estoppel, or the law of the case.

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
 Laurie Baiden Bumb Thomas A. Massey
 Bumb Law Office, LLC Massey Law Offices, LLC
 Evansville, Indiana Evansville, Indiana

 IN THE
 COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

 Kevin Heckel, August 16, 2019
 Appellant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
 18A-DR-2860
 v. Appeal from the Spencer Circuit
 Court
 Tammy Heckel, The Honorable Lucy Goffinet,
 Appellee-Petitioner/Cross-Appellee Special Judge
 Trial Court Cause No.
 74C01-1606-DR-210

 Crone, Judge.

 Case Summary
[1] Kevin Heckel ("Husband") and Tammy Heckel ("Wife") both appeal the trial

 court's order dissolving their marriage. Husband contends that the trial court

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 1 of 17
 erred in dividing the marital estate equally and in summarily finding Wife's

 witnesses more credible than his witnesses regarding the valuation of marital

 assets. Wife contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain assets from

 the marital estate and in failing to rule on her petition asserting that Husband is

 in contempt of a provisional order requiring him to share farm rental income

 with her. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

 dividing the marital estate equally and in summarily finding Wife's witnesses

 more credible than Husband's, but that it erred in excluding certain assets from

 the estate and in failing to rule on Wife's contempt petition. We therefore

 affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to include the

 challenged assets in the marital estate, equalize the estate accordingly, and issue

 a ruling on Wife's contempt petition.

 Facts and Procedural History
[2] Husband and Wife were married in October 1998. Their two children were

 born in 2001 and 2003. In 2003, Husband's mother deeded approximately 210

 acres of Heckel family farmland, including a seventy-nine-acre turkey farm, to

 the parties jointly as husband and wife. Husband and Wife built their marital

 residence on a forty-acre parcel of that farmland. Husband and Wife also

 acquired farmland on their own, including the 108-acre Polster Farm, and

 rented some of their farmland. Husband was employed by Covia, formerly

 known as Unimin, and also managed the family farming operations. Wife

 operated a gift shop in a building that she and Husband purchased.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 2 of 17
 [3] In June 2016, Wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage. In January 2017, Wife

 filed a petition for contempt asserting that Husband had failed to divide $20,000

 in 2016 farm rental income equally with her in violation of an October 2016

 provisional order. The final hearing was held over multiple days in May and

 June 2018. During the hearing, the trial court stated that it would rule on the

 contempt petition in its final order. See Tr. Vol. 4 at 140 ("I'm going to save my

 ruling for the $10,000 to go with the […] final decree."). The parties submitted

 proposed findings and conclusions at the trial court's request.

[4] In October 2018, the trial court issued its own findings, conclusions, and order

 dissolving the parties' marriage and addressing child- and property-related

 issues. The relevant findings and conclusions read as follows:1

 [Findings]

 37. The Court finds Husband's income at his current employer is
 $117,712.92.

 38. The Court finds Wife's income is $51,000.

 39. Based upon evidence and testimony presented the Court
 finds that the farming operations have been operating at a loss
 and no income will be attributed to either party.

 ….

 43. Indiana Code 31-15-7-4 provides that all marital property is

 1
 We replace the trial court's references to the parties with "Husband" and "Wife" where appropriate.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 3 of 17
 to be divided and that the trial court shall divide the property in a
 just and reasonable manner.

 44. Indiana Code 31-15-7-5 states that the Court shall presume
 that an equal division of marital property is just and reasonable.

 45. There was no relevant evidence that [was] submitted by
 either party relating to the disposition or dissipation of marital
 property.

 46. There was no Prenuptial Agreement.

 47. Wife has a high school diploma and very little college.
 Almost all of her business attempts have been failures.

 48. Husband has an Electrical Engineering degree from Purdue
 University and has been very successful in employment.

 49. The parties acquired a substantial amount of farm land
 during the marriage. Some of the farmland was deeded to them
 by Husband's mother.

 ….

 59. The Court does not find Husband's valuations of the
 residence, farm land and operations convincing.

 60. The Court finds Wife's valuations of the residence[,] farm
 land and operations convincing.

 ….

 63. Based upon evidence and testimony presented the Court
 finds Husband's [Unimin] 401(k) to have a pre-marital rollover
 amount of $85,002.26 which will be fully set aside to him.

 64. Based upon evidence and testimony the Court finds

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 4 of 17
 Husband's Unimin 401(k) valued at $346,365.53.

 ….

 66. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented the Court
 finds the Putnam Investment account in the amount of $5,457.19
 to be a pre-marital asset belonging to Husband and should be
 fully set aside to him.

 67. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented the Court
 finds the FPA Paramount Fund account in the amount of
 $5,164.73 to be a pre-marital asset belonging to Husband and
 should be fully set aside to him.

 ….

 [Conclusions]

 ….

 5. Wife shall be awarded the marital residence, along with 5
 acres, … free and clear of any claim from the Husband. The
 Court finds the value of the marital residence, and the
 surrounding 5 acres, to be $402,000.00. Husband shall execute a
 Quitclaim Deed to relinquish his name from the joint title.

 6. Husband shall be awarded the remaining 35 acres that
 surround the marital home. The court finds the value of the 35
 acres to be $105,000.00. Wife shall execute a Quitclaim Deed to
 relinquish her name from the joint title.

 7. Husband shall be the sole owner of the mortgage debt due and
 owing on the home in the amount of $197,181.00.

 8. Husband shall be the sole owner of the home equity debt due
 and owing in the amount of $49,190.93.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 5 of 17
 9. Husband shall transfer or pay off all the joint indebtedness
 from the marital residence within sixty (60) days of the date of
 this order.…

 10. Husband shall become the sole owner of the 79 acres
 containing the turkey farm …. The Court finds the value of the
 79 acres, containing the turkey farm, to be $960,000.00. Wife
 shall execute a Quitclaim Deed to relinquish her name [from] the
 joint title to this real estate.

 11. Wife shall become the sole owner of the 108 acres of farm
 ground known as the Polster Farm. The Court finds the value of
 the 108-acre farm to be $540,000.00. Husband shall execute a
 Quitclaim Deed to relinquish his name from the joint title.

 12. Husband shall become the sole owner of the remaining 121
 acres of jointly owned real estate. The Court finds the value of
 the real estate to be $525,000.00. Wife shall execute a Quitclaim
 Deed to relinquish her name from the joint title.

 13. The Court is awarding Husband all of the jointly owned real
 estate that originated from the Heckel family farm, with the
 exception of the 5 acres upon which the marital residence is
 located.

 14. Each party shall be the sole owners of any crops, fixtures,
 barns, grains, bins, timer and any other similar assets upon the
 real estate awarded to that party.

 15. Husband shall within thirty (30) days provide to Wife copies
 of all lease agreements.

 16. Wife shall become the sole owner of the business Evergreen
 Boutique and Christmas Shop, LLC. The Court finds the value
 of the business to be $50,000.00. Husband shall execute a
 Quitclaim Deed to relinquish his name from the joint title.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 6 of 17
 17. Wife shall be the sole owner of the Edwards Jones IRA in
 the amount of $29,447.66.

 18. Husband's Unimin 401(k) shall be equally (50/50) divided,
 with the exception of the $85,002.26 pre-marital rollover amount,
 with Wife to receive a lump sum $173,182.77 by qualified
 Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and Husband shall be the
 sole owner of the remaining balance.…

 19. Husband's Unimin Pension plan shall be equally (50/50)
 [divided] by QDRO. The Court finds Wife's interest to be in the
 amount of $37,116.86. Husband shall become the sole owner of
 the remaining balance.…

 20. Husband shall become the sole owner of the Putnam
 Investment account. The court concludes this to be a premarital
 asset.

 21. Husband shall become the sole owner of his FPA Paramount
 account. The court concludes this to be a premarital asset.

 22. Wife shall become the sole owner of [a Toyota Highlander
 valued at $30,000, a mower, a four-wheeler, and] home
 furnishings with the approximate value of $20,000.00.

 23. Husband shall be the sole owner of the personal property in
 his possession and also [certain farm equipment as well as all]
 other machinery, fixtures and equipment for the farm operation
 located on the real estate awarded to the husband.

 24. Husband shall be responsible for the Old National Bank farm
 operation loan in the amount of $46,753.33.…

 25. Husband shall be responsible for the Old National Bank
 commercial loan in the amount of $53,447.24.…

 26. Husband shall be responsible for the debt due and owing on

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 7 of 17
 the Toyota Highlander in the amount of $18,341.57.…

 27. Husband shall be responsible for the Custody Evaluation Fee
 in the amount of $18,850.00.…

 28. Husband shall be responsible for the payment of the Farm
 Bureau Policy Renewal in the amount of $4,814.00.

 29. Each party shall be responsible for their own attorney fees.

 ….

 31. To effect the Court's 50/50 distribution of marital assets
 Husband shall pay to Wife a lump sum property settlement
 payment of $64,987.30, which shall accrue no interest if timely
 paid within three (3) months from the date of this Decree.

 Appealed Order at 5-15.

[5] Both parties now appeal. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

 Discussion and Decision

 Section 1 – The trial court clearly erred in excluding a portion
 of Husband's 401(k) and the Putnam Investment and FPA
 Paramount accounts from the marital estate.
[6] We first address Wife's argument that the trial court erred in excluding a

 portion of Husband's 401(k) and the Putnam Investment and FPA Paramount

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 8 of 17
 accounts from the marital estate.2 Where, as here, the trial court asks the

 parties to submit proposed findings and then enters findings of fact and

 conclusions on its own motion, "the specific findings control only as to the

 issues they cover, while a general judgment standard applies to any issue upon

 which the court has not found." Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744, 751 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 2003), trans. denied. "The specific findings will not be set aside unless they

 are clearly erroneous, and we will affirm the general judgment on any legal

 theory supported by the evidence." Id. "A finding is clearly erroneous when

 there are no facts or inferences drawn therefrom that support it." Id. A

 judgment is clearly erroneous if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. Buse v.

 Trs. of Luce Twp. Reg'l Sewer Dist., 953 N.E.2d 519, 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

[7] "In reviewing the trial court's findings, we neither reweigh the evidence nor

 judge the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, we consider only the evidence

 and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the finding." Apter,

 781 N.E.2d at 751 (citation omitted). While we defer substantially to a trial

 court's findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions of law. Buse, 953

 N.E.2d at 523. "We evaluate questions of law de novo and owe no deference

 to a trial court's determination of such questions." Id. (quoting McCauley v.

 Harris, 923 N.E.2d 309, 313 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (2011)). "In

 other words, ‘[a] decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and

 2
 Husband asserts that "[t]he trial court's Findings specifically include each of these pre-marital assets in the
 marital estate." Husband's Reply Br. at 8. The trial court listed the assets in its findings, but it did not
 include them in its itemized balance sheet of the marital estate.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 9 of 17
 effect of the facts and circumstances that were before the trial court' or if the

 court misinterprets the law." Id. (quoting Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045,

 1047 (Ind. 2008)).

[8] Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that the trial court in a dissolution

 action "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:

 (A) after the marriage; and (B) before final separation of the parties; or (3)

 acquired by their joint efforts." (Emphases added.) "Indiana law has been

 uniformly interpreted as requiring the trial court to divide ‘all' the property of

 the parties, specifically prohibiting the exclusion of any assets from the scope of

 the court's powers to divide and award." Nill v. Nill, 584 N.E.2d 602, 604 (Ind.

 Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied. "Only property acquired by an individual spouse

 after the separation date is excluded from the marital estate." Thompson v.

 Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (emphasis added), trans.

 denied (2005). "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 as to how the marital estate should be divided." Hartley v.

 Hartley, 862 N.E.2d 274, 282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

[9] Based on the foregoing, we agree with Wife that the trial court clearly erred in

 excluding the premarital rollover portion of Husband's 401(k) and his Putnam

 Investment and FPA Paramount accounts from the marital estate. Therefore,

 we reverse and remand with instructions to include those assets in the marital

 estate and equalize the estate accordingly.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 10 of 17
 Section 2 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
 dividing the marital estate equally.
[10] We now address Husband's argument that the trial court erred in dividing the

 marital estate equally. The division of marital assets is a highly fact-sensitive

 task within the trial court's sound discretion, and we will reverse only for an

 abuse of that discretion. In re Marriage of Marek, 47 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 2016), trans. denied. "We will reverse a trial court's division of marital

 property only if there is no rational basis for the award; that is, if the result is

 clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, including the

 reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom." Id. "We will also reverse if the

 trial court has misinterpreted the law or disregarded evidence of factors listed in

 the controlling statute." Id. "Although the facts and reasonable inferences

 might allow for a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court, we

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

[11] Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(b) provides that the court "shall divide the

 property in a just and reasonable manner[.]" The court may do so by dividing

 the property in kind; "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"; "ordering the sale of the property

 under such conditions as the court prescribes and dividing the proceeds of the

 sale"; or ordering the distribution of pension benefits "that are payable after the

 dissolution of marriage, by setting aside to either of the parties a percentage of

 those payments either by assignment or in kind at the time of receipt." Id

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 11 of 17
 [12] "The 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.

 (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.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 12 of 17
 Id. "The statutory factors are to be considered together in determining what is

 just and reasonable; any one factor is not entitled to special weight." In re

 Marriage of Lay, 512 N.E.2d 1120, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). "The party

 seeking to rebut the presumption of equal division bears the burden of proof of

 doing so, and a party challenging the trial court's decision on appeal must

 overcome a strong presumption that the trial court acted correctly in applying

 the statute[.]" Marek, 47 N.E.3d at 1288.

[13] Husband argues,

 It is difficult to imagine a factual situation that is more
 appropriate for an unequal division of marital property than is
 presented here, where farm land that has been owned by the
 Husband's family for generations is deeded to the parties, with
 the intent that ownership be with the Husband who was born,
 raised, and worked on the farm since childhood, and where the
 Wife has made no contributions of any kind toward the
 acquisition or maintenance of the farm land.

 Husband's Br. at 29.3 He contends that "[t]he only findings that might arguably

 support an equal division would be Findings 37 and 38 concerning the earnings

 3
 Husband suggests that the trial court should have excluded the Heckel family farmland from the marital
 estate. This suggestion is a nonstarter for the reasons given in Section 1 above.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 13 of 17
 of the parties and Findings 47 and 48 concerning their earning abilities." Id. at

 33.4

[14] The substantial disparity in the parties' earnings and earning ability is a valid

 justification for an equal division of the marital estate, even considering

 Husband's maintenance of the farmland and the trial court's award of the

 marital residence and a small portion of that farmland to Wife. Wife points out

 that after she and Husband received the deed to the Heckel family farmland

 from his mother, they obtained a joint mortgage to pay off the existing $45,000

 mortgage on the property and to pay $50,000 to each of Husband's two siblings

 on his mother's behalf. In other words, the farmland did not simply land in

 Wife's lap with no strings attached. We cannot conclude that the trial court

 abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate equally between the parties.

 Section 3 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
 summarily finding Wife's witnesses more credible than
 Husband's witnesses.
[15] Husband also contends that the trial court abused its discretion "by summarily

 adopting all of the valuations of the Wife's appraisers and valuators and

 4
 Husband complains,

 There was no finding that the trial court had determined that an equal division of the marital
 estate was just and reasonable or that the Husband had failed to rebut the presumption that an
 equal division is presumed to be just and reasonable by his relevant evidence in support of an
 unequal division.
 Husband's Br. at 32-33. Those findings are implicit in Conclusion 31.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 14 of 17
 rejecting all of the valuations of the Husband's appraisers and valuators."

 Husband's Br. at 38. He complains that

 the appraisers employed different methods and approaches in the
 process of placing a value on [the] properties and their resulting
 opinions of value varied significantly. The total combined value
 of the Wife's experts was approximately $400,000 higher than the
 total combined value placed by the Husband's experts on [the]
 properties.

 Id. He further complains that the trial court

 provided no review, analysis or critique of the testimony of the …
 experts, their qualifications or their different methods and
 approaches to the valuation of the properties. Based upon the
 trial court's findings, it is difficult to ascertain whether the court
 even considered and weighed the testimony and opinions of the
 Husband's valuators.

 Id. at 39.

[16] The trial court has broad discretion in determining the value of property in a

 dissolution action, and its valuation will be disturbed only for an abuse of

 discretion. Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). "If

 there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision, no abuse of

 discretion occurred." Id. Husband cites no relevant authority for the

 proposition that a trial court is required to enter detailed findings regarding why

 it found one party's witnesses more credible than another's, particularly absent

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 15 of 17
 a request for special findings pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A).5 Contrary

 to Husband's assertion, the trial court specifically stated that it considered the

 testimony and opinions of his valuators, and it simply found them less credible

 than those of Wife's valuators. Husband's argument is merely a request to

 reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which we may not do.

 Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.

 Section 4 – On remand, the trial court must rule on Wife's
 petition for contempt regarding the farm rental income.
[17] Finally, we address Wife's argument that the trial court erred in failing to rule

 on her petition to hold Husband in contempt for failing to divide $20,000 in

 farm rental income equally with her pursuant to the October 2016 provisional

 order. This was clearly an oversight on the trial court's part, and therefore on

 remand the court must rule on this issue.6

 5
 Husband devotes a significant portion of his statement of facts to a description of both parties' valuations of
 various properties. Wife does the same. As this Court stated under similar circumstances in Crider v. Crider,
 15 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied,
 This case highlights just how inexact property valuation is; the trial court was faced with
 [multiple] qualified experts who presented diametrically opposed opinions, supported by
 extensive reports and reasoning, as to the value of [certain] real estate. It was for the trial court
 to decide which opinion to accept. We cannot reweigh the evidence or "judge the credibility of
 the battling expert witnesses."
 Id. at 1059 (quoting Goodwine v. Goodwine, 819 N.E.2d 824, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)). We find Husband's
 citation to Garriott v. Peters, 878 N.E.2d 431 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied (2008), inapposite because the
 trial court in that case gave no reason for discrediting a party's unrefuted evidence.
 6
 We reject Wife's suggestion that we may rule on her contempt petition as a court of first instance. We also
 reject Husband's suggestion that the issue is moot because the trial court's provisional order was extinguished
 by its final order.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 16 of 17
 [18] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

 Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2860 | August 16, 2019 Page 17 of 17