CourtListener opinion 4521088

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

MEMORANDUM DECISION
 Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
 this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
 regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 31 2020, 9:37 am
 court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
 the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
 Laura A. Raiman
 R. Patrick Magrath
 Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP
 Madison, Indiana

 IN THE
 COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

 Ronald Abner, Jr., March 31, 2020
 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
 19A-DC-2123
 v. Appeal from the Jackson Superior
 Court
 Aurora Abner, The Honorable Bruce A.
 Appellee-Petitioner. MacTavish, Judge
 Trial Court Cause No.
 36D02-1811-DC-249

 Mathias, Judge.

[1] Ronald ("Husband") and Aurora ("Wife") Abner's marriage was dissolved in

 Jackson Superior Court. Husband appeals and raises several issues, which we

 restate as:

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 1 of 13
 I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it failed
 to include Wife's overtime income in its calculation of the
 parties' respective child support obligations;

 II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
 concluded that Husband's child support arrearage was
 $300.00;

 III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
 awarded sole legal custody of the children to Wife; and,

 IV. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its
 valuation of the parties' marital assets.

[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with

 this opinion.

 Facts and Procedural History
[3] The parties were married in 2009 and have two minor children ages eight and

 six on the date of dissolution. On November 14, 2018, Wife filed a petition to

 dissolve the marriage in Jackson Superior Court.

[4] Wife and Husband are both employed at a Walmart Distribution Center. Wife

 is an hourly employee and is eligible to earn overtime. She generally earned

 overtime in most pay periods. Husband is a salaried employee, and he received

 an incentive bonus while the dissolution was pending.

[5] The parties' parenting time arrangement varied throughout the proceedings

 depending on the parties' changing work schedules. On April 16, 2019, the trial

 court issued a provisional order granting Wife custody of the children, and

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 2 of 13
 Father was awarded parenting time. Father was also ordered to pay $156 per

 week in child support and one half of the mortgage payment on the marital

 residence. Father subsequently filed a motion to correct error arguing that the

 trial court incorrectly calculated his child support obligation. The trial court

 determined it would address the issue raised in Husband's motion to correct

 error at the final hearing.

[6] On August 8, 2019, the trial court held the final dissolution hearing. The trial

 court issued its decree of dissolution on August 28, 2019. Wife was awarded

 physical and legal custody of the children, and Husband was awarded parenting

 time consistent with the Parenting Time Guidelines. Husband was ordered to

 pay $143 per week in child support. The trial court denied Husband's motion to

 correct the trial court's alleged error in its provisional child support orders.

[7] With regard to division of the marital estate, Wife was awarded the marital

 residence, and Husband was awarded two other properties owned by the

 parties. Both parties presented appraisal evidence concerning the value of the

 properties. The trial court accepted the values proposed by Wife. Each party

 was awarded certain vehicles and their individual Walmart 401Ks. The trial

 court ordered Husband to make an equalization payment to Wife in the sum of

 $11,548.97 via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Husband now appeals.

 Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 13
 Standard of Review
[8] First, we observe that Wife has not filed an appellee's brief. When the appellee

 fails to submit a brief, we will not develop an argument on her behalf, but

 instead, we may reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief

 presents a case of prima facie error. GEICO Ins. Co. v. Graham, 14 N.E.3d 854,

 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

 I. Child Support

[9] Husband claims several errors in the trial court's child support calculation. A

 trial court's calculation of child support is presumptively valid. Young v. Young,

 891 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2008). We will reverse a trial court's decision in

 child support matters only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. A

 decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the

 facts and circumstances that were before the trial court. Id.

[10] Husband argues that the trial court's child support calculation is not supported

 by the evidence because the trial court did not include Wife's overtime income

 in determining her weekly gross income. Child support calculations are made

 utilizing the income shares model set forth in the Indiana Child Support

 Guidelines. In re Marriage of Duckworth, 989 N.E.2d 352, 354 (Ind. Ct. App.

 2013). These Guidelines apportion the cost of supporting children between the

 parents according to their means. Id. A calculation of child support under the

 Guidelines is presumed valid. Id. Indiana Child Support Guideline 3A(1)

 provides in part that "weekly gross income" is defined "as actual weekly gross

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 4 of 13
 income of the parent if employed to full capacity, potential income if

 unemployed or underemployed, and imputed income based upon ‘in-kind'

 benefits" and that "[w]eekly gross income of each parent includes income from

 any source, except as excluded below, and includes, but is not limited to,

 income from salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, overtime, partnership

 distributions, [and] dividends[.]" Marshall v. Marshall, 92 N.E.3d 1112, 1117

 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

[11] Throughout the proceedings, Wife generally earned overtime income during

 most pay periods. She earned almost $5000 in overtime income from December

 2018 to July 2019. Although the trial court included Husband's bonus in its

 child support calculation, the trial court did not consider Wife's overtime

 income in its child support calculation. We agree with Husband that the trial

 court erred when it failed to consider Wife's overtime income in its calculation

 of her weekly gross income when it determined the parties' relative child

 support obligations.

[12] Next, Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it

 concluded that his child support arrearage was $300. Specifically, he claims the

 erroneous arrearage is the result of the trial court's incorrect calculation of his

 provisional child support obligation. He argues that the trial court miscalculated

 his number of overnights and his health insurance credit. Husband also

 contends that the trial court should not have awarded Wife a childcare credit

 because third-party childcare was not necessary during the proceedings.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 5 of 13
 [13] Husband's argument with regard to the provisional child support calculation

 and arrearage is simply a request to reweigh the evidence. Husband and Wife

 gave conflicting testimony concerning the number of overnights Husband

 exercised with the children. The parties also gave conflicting testimony

 concerning Wife's need for childcare. The parties presented conflicting evidence

 concerning Husband's health insurance premium and the amount of that

 premium that should be considered in the child support calculation. The trial

 court credited Wife's testimony and evidence, and our court will not reweigh

 that determination on appeal.

[14] In the trial court's April 16, 2019, provisional order, the trial court determined

 that Husband's child support arrearage was $1370. Appellant's App. p. 87. And

 Husband's child support obligation was $156 per week. Between April 16, 2019,

 and August 7, 2019, Husband owed $2496 in child support, and he paid $3562.

 Therefore, his remaining arrearage was $304. Accordingly, the trial court did

 not abuse its discretion when it ordered Husband to pay $300 for his child

 support arrearage.

 II. Child Custody

[15] The trial court's decisions regarding child custody are reviewed only for an

 abuse of discretion. Purnell v. Purnell, 131 N.E.3d 622, 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

 (citing Sabo v. Sabo, 858 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)), trans. denied.

 There is a well-established preference in Indiana for granting latitude and

 deference to trial judges in family law matters. Id. (citing Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51

 N.E.3d 119, 124 (Ind. 2016)). Appellate deference to the determinations of trial
 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 6 of 13
 court judges, especially in domestic relations matters, is warranted because of

 their unique, direct interactions with the parties face to face, often over an

 extended period of time. Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011).

 Importantly, because our trial judges are required to assess credibility and

 character through both factual testimony and intuitive discernment, judges are

 "in a superior position to ascertain information and apply common sense,

 particularly in the determination of the best interests of the involved children."

 Id.

[16] Indiana Code section 31-17-2-8 provides in relevant part:

 The court shall determine custody and enter a custody order in
 accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the
 best interests of the child, there is no presumption favoring either
 parent. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including the
 following:

 (1) The age and sex of the child.

 (2) The wishes of the child's parent or parents.

 (3) The wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
 child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age.

 (4) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with:

 (A) the child's parent or parents;

 (B) the child's sibling; and

 (C) any other person who may significantly affect the
 child's best interests.

 (5) The child's adjustment to the child's:

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 7 of 13
 (A) home;

 (B) school; and

 (C) community.

 (6) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

 (7) Evidence of a pattern of domestic or family violence by either
 parent.

[17] A trial court may award joint legal custody if it finds that joint legal custody is

 in the best interest of the child. Ind. Code § 31-17-2-13. Section 31-17-2-15 sets

 forth the matters a trial court is required to consider in determining whether

 joint legal custody is in the best interests of the child:

 [T]he court shall consider it a matter of primary, but not
 determinative, importance that the persons awarded joint
 custody have agreed to an award of joint legal custody. The court
 shall also consider:

 (1) the fitness and suitability of each of the persons awarded joint
 custody;

 (2) whether the persons awarded joint custody are willing and
 able to communicate and cooperate in advancing the child's
 welfare;

 (3) the wishes of the child, with more consideration given to the
 child's wishes if the child is at least fourteen (14) years of age;

 (4) whether the child has established a close and beneficial
 relationship with both of the persons awarded joint custody;

 (5) whether the persons awarded joint custody:

 (A) live in close proximity to each other; and

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 8 of 13
 (B) plan to continue to do so; and

 (6) the nature of the physical and emotional environment in the
 home of each of the persons awarded joint custody.

[18] The parties did not agree to joint legal custody. Husband argues that the trial

 court abused its discretion when it awarded sole legal custody of the children to

 Wife because he has maintained an "equal parental contribution in the

 children's lives" since the parties separated. Appellant's Br. at 19. He also

 claims that the parties have agreed to work together to raise the children.

 Finally, Husband notes that the trial court did not determine that awarding sole

 legal custody to Wife was in the children's best interests.1

[19] Husband has been involved in caring for the children. But Wife makes the

 decisions regarding the children's attendance at church, medical care, and

 school. The parties generally agreed on these issues. Wife testified that Husband

 does not communicate with her. There were also occasions during these

 proceedings where Husband refused to allow the children to communicate with

 Wife while the children were in Husband's care.

[20] Throughout the proceedings, Wife raised concerns that Husband was

 continuing to use steroids and drink excessively, as had been his practice

 throughout their marriage. During the proceedings, Husband was ordered to

 1
 Neither party requested Trial Rule 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case. Moreover, a trial
 court is presumed to know and follow the applicable law. See Hamilton v. Hamilton, 132 N.E.3d 428 (Ind. Ct.
 App. 2019).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 9 of 13
 abstain from drinking twenty-four hours before and while the children were in

 his care. He violated the order on at least one occasion. Husband also publicly

 posted a picture of himself with the children where he was buried in sand at the

 beach but had an item protruding from his groin area. And shortly after the

 parties' separated, Husband began residing with his girlfriend, who is

 approximately twenty years his junior, and her infant child.

[21] It was within the province of the trial court to weigh the parties' evidence while

 considering the factors enumerated in Indiana Code section 31-17-2-15. We

 cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded sole

 legal custody of the children to Wife.

 III. Division of the Marital Estate

[22] The division of marital property is within the sound discretion of the trial court,

 and we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion. Love v. Love, 10 N.E.3d

 1005, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We will reverse a trial court's division of

 marital property only if the result is clearly against the logic and effect of the

 facts and circumstances, including the reasonable inferences to be drawn

 therefrom. Luttrell v. Luttrell, 994 N.E.2d 298, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.

 denied. When we review a claim that the trial court improperly divided marital

 property, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's

 disposition of the property without reweighing evidence or assessing witness

 credibility. In re Marriage of Marek, 47 N.E.3d 1283, 1287–88 (Ind. Ct. App.

 2016), trans. denied. "Although the facts and reasonable inferences might allow

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 10 of 13
 for a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court, we will not

 substitute our judgment for that of the trial court." Id. at 1288.

[23] Husband complains that the trial court adopted Wife's valuation of the three

 parcels of real estate owned by the parties "without explanation." Appellant's

 Br. at 21. But there was appraisal evidence from both parties concerning the

 value of those properties, and it was within the trial court's discretion to accept

 Wife's proposed valuations. Generally, there is no abuse of discretion if a trial

 court's chosen valuation is within the range of values supported by the

 evidence. Del Priore v. Del Priore, 65 N.E.3d 1065, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016),

 trans. denied. "A valuation submitted by one of the parties is competent evidence

 of the value of property in a dissolution action and may alone support the trial

 court's determination in that regard." Id. (citing Alexander v. Alexander, 927

 N.E.2d 926, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied).

[24] Husband also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it adopted

 Wife's proposed values for the parties' three vehicles because Wife did not

 know how those proposed values were calculated. First, the parties' proposed

 values for Husband's Chevy Silverado were $4450 and $5000. Given the slight

 disparity between the two values, we cannot conclude that the trial court

 abused its discretion when it valued the Silverado at $5000. With regard to the

 other two vehicles, neither party presented evidence beyond their respective

 opinions of the vehicles' worth. Husband claims his values were based on the

 Kelley Blue Book, but that evidence is not in the record. For this reason, we

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 11 of 13
 cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it credited Wife's

 opinion of the value of the vehicles.2

[25] Finally, Husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed

 to value the parties' personal property. As with their vehicles, the only evidence

 presented concerning the value of the personal property that each party retained

 from the marital estate was minimal and speculative. Both parties testified that

 they kept certain items such as televisions, appliances, and furniture. Given the

 lack of evidence of the personal property retained by each party and/or the

 value of that property, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its

 discretion when it failed to value and divide that property in its order dissolving

 the marital estate.

 Conclusion
[26] In his appeal of the trial court's dissolution order, Husband has requested that

 our court reweigh the evidence and credibility of witnesses, which our court

 will not do. However, Husband established reversible error in the trial court's

 calculation of the parties' respective child support obligations because the court

 failed to include Wife's overtime income in its calculation.

 2
 The trial court found that the parties' fourteen-year-old Chevrolet Trailblazer had a value of $500. Although
 the vehicle runs, Wife testified that it had 220,000 miles and it was not worth more than $500. Final Hearing
 Tr. p. 44. Wife also owned the 2006 Jeep Commander prior to the marriage.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 12 of 13
 [27] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent

 with this opinion.

 Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-2123 | March 31, 2020 Page 13 of 13