CourtListener opinion 9897426

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

FILED
 Apr 14 2023, 9:29 am

 CLERK
 Indiana Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 and Tax Court

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
 Glen E. Koch, II Michael A. Ksenak
 Boren, Oliver & Coffey, LLP Ksenak Law Firm
 Martinsville, Indiana Martinsville, Indiana

 IN THE
 COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

 Bradley Cooley, April 14, 2023
 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
 22A-DN-1202
 v. Appeal from the Morgan Superior
 Court
 Shelly Cooley, The Honorable Sara A. Dungan,
 Appellee-Petitioner Judge
 Trial Court Cause No.
 55D03-2108-DN-1213

 Opinion by Judge Mathias
 Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur.

 Mathias, Judge.

[1] Bradley Cooley ("Husband") appeals the Morgan Superior Court's decree of

 dissolution of his marriage to Shelly Cooley ("Wife"). Husband presents two

 issues for our review:

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 1 of 8
 I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
 ordered Husband to obtain and subsidize a life insurance
 policy as security for his equalization payment, to be made
 in installments, to Wife.

 II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it did
 not consider the potential tax consequences to him of
 giving Wife one-half of his future pension distributions.

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

 Facts and Procedural History
[3] Husband and Wife married in November 1995 and have no children together.

 They separated in August 2021, and Wife filed a petition for dissolution of the

 marriage. Following the final hearing, the trial court issued its decree of

 dissolution. In the decree, the court valued the marital estate at $1,257,934.96

 and divided it equally between the parties.

[4] Husband is employed by the Morgan County Sheriff's Department and the trial

 court valued his present interest in his pension at $1,101,110.82. Husband's

 pension is not subject to a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO").1

 Accordingly, the court awarded the pension to Husband and ordered him to

 pay to Wife an equalization payment in the amount of $475,043.29.

 1
 Under federal law, government pensions are not subject to a QDRO. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d
 721, 725 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 2 of 8
 [5] Husband does not have liquid assets sufficient to pay Wife the equalization

 payment, and he testified that it was "possible" that he would ignore a court

 order that he pay Wife one-half of his future retirement benefits to satisfy the

 equalization payment. Tr. p. 76. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that

 Husband pay Wife, over time, as follows:

 15. Should Husband die prior to receiving any of his pension,
 Wife would have no way to obtain a significant portion of her
 share of the marital property or estate. In order to provide some
 assurance the Wife will receive her share of the marital estate,
 within five (5) days of the issuance of the Decree, Husband shall
 contact Billy Guy at Farm Bureau insurance and apply for a life
 insurance policy with an initial death value of $475,000.00, with
 Wife to be the owner and beneficiary of said policy. Wife shall pay
 the premiums required for said policy and said premiums paid by Wife
 shall be added to the equalization payment set forth in the Court's
 Distribution of Marital Estate (attached). Husband shall provide
 Wife with documentation of his application for such and a copy
 of the policy once written. This life insurance policy shall remain
 in full force and effect until Wife has received the full amount of
 the equalization balance. On an annual basis or as allowed by the
 life insurance company, the death value of the policy may be
 reduced to reflect the current revised equalization balance due
 after crediting Husband with the monthly cash equalization
 payments made by Husband to Wife as ordered below;

 16. Husband shall make monthly equalization payments to Wife
 in the amount of $400 per month, beginning no later than 30
 days following issuance of the Decree and continuing until he
 retires. Upon retirement, Husband shall make payments to Wife
 in the sum of $1,684.38 per month (50% of the monthly benefit to
 be paid to Husband for his accrued and vested benefit calculated
 through the date of filing August 11, 2021; Exhibit 2). Said
 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 3 of 8
 monthly payments would cease once Wife has received the
 equalization balance due to her;

 17. If Husband should pass away prior to Wife receiving her
 equalization share and the life insurance benefits received by
 Wife as explained above exceeds what is owed to her, then Wife
 shall pay to Husband's estate the amount of life insurance
 proceeds received in excess of the equalization balance due to
 her[.]

 Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 37-38 (emphasis added). This appeal ensued.

 Discussion and Decision
 Standard of Review

[6] Husband appeals the trial court's decree of dissolution. Dissolution actions

 invoke the inherent equitable and discretionary authority of our trial courts,

 and, as such, we review their decisions with "substantial deference." See, e.g.,

 R.W. v. M.D. (In re Visitation of L-A.D.W.), 38 N.E.3d 993, 998 (Ind. 2015).

 Here, the trial court supported its exercise of that authority with findings of fact

 and conclusions thereon following an evidentiary hearing. As our Supreme

 Court has stated:

 The trial court's findings were entered pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule
 52(A) which prohibits a reviewing court on appeal from setting
 aside the trial court's judgment "unless clearly erroneous." The
 court on appeal is further required to give "due regard . . . to the
 opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
 witnesses." When a trial court has made special findings of fact,
 as it did in this case, its judgment is clearly erroneous only if (i)

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 4 of 8
 its findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law or (ii) its
 conclusions of law do not support its judgment. Estate of Reasor v.
 Putnam County, 635 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. 1994). Findings are
 clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to
 support them either directly or by inference. Reasor, 635 N.E.2d
 at 158.

 Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). Similarly, the trial court's

 division of the marital property "is highly fact sensitive and is subject to an

 abuse of discretion standard" of review. Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 59

 (Ind. 2002). Under that standard, we consider only "the evidence in a light most

 favorable to the judgment." Id.

 Issue One: Life Insurance Policy

[7] Husband first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered

 him to obtain and subsidize a life insurance policy naming Wife as the owner and

 beneficiary. Husband presents an issue of first impression for our courts,

 namely, whether a dissolution court has discretion to order a party to buy life

 insurance as security for an equalization payment.

[8] Wife asserts that the trial court has that authority under Indiana Code section

 31-15-7-8, which provides that, when it enters a dissolution decree, "the court

 may provide for the security, bond, or other guarantee that is satisfactory to the

 court to secure the division of property." As this Court has stated, this

 "‘statutory language obviously affords the court the broadest possible discretion

 in requiring security.'" Birkhimer v. Birkhimer, 981 N.E.2d 111, 127 (Ind. Ct.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 5 of 8
 App. 2012) (quoting In re Marriage of Davis, 395 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 1979)); see also Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)

 (affirming trial court's grant to Wife of security interest in Husband's LLCs to

 secure equalization judgment), trans. denied. We agree with Wife that, under the

 circumstances here, Indiana Code section 31-15-7-8 gave the trial court

 discretion to order Husband to secure Wife's share of the marital estate by way

 of obtaining a life insurance policy payable to Wife.

[9] However, whether the trial court may add the values of those future premium

 payments to the equalization payment Husband owes Wife is another matter.

 Again, the trial court ordered Wife to pay the life insurance premiums but also

 ordered that "said premiums paid by Wife shall be added to the equalization

 payment[.]" Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 37. As Husband points out,

 Indiana Code section 31–15–7–4 provides that the marital estate
 that the trial court must divide in a dissolution proceeding is
 comprised of the property owned or acquired by either party
 before the "final separation of the parties[,]" which is defined as
 "the date of filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage[.]"
 Ind. Code § 31–9–2–46. In other words, the marital estate is set at
 the time of the filing of the dissolution petition[.]

 Helm v. Helm, 873 N.E.2d 83, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Here, the trial court's

 decree increases the amount of the equalization payment to Wife with every

 premium payment and thus, in effect, increases the value of the marital estate

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 6 of 8
 and the share of the marital estate awarded to Wife beyond the date of the

 parties' final separation.

[10] Accordingly, we hold that portion of the decree violates Indiana Code section

 31-15-7-4, and we reverse that part of the decree with respect to payment of the

 life insurance premiums. On remand, the trial court shall determine, either by

 agreement of the parties or by way of submissions or another hearing, the cost

 of the life insurance premiums in light of Husband's life expectancy. With those

 factors determined, the trial court shall include the total projected cost of the life

 insurance policy2 in the marital estate3 as a security for the marital asset of

 Husband's pension and recalculate the equalization payment to Wife so that

 Wife and Husband share the cost of this security equally.

 Issue Two: Tax Consequences

[11] Husband next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not

 consider the tax consequences he will incur when, at some point in the future,

 he starts to draw on his pension and pays Wife one-half of those benefits. Wife

 argues, however, that Husband did not present evidence to support an award

 2
 We note that a term life insurance policy in the amount of the equalization payment based on Wife's life
 expectancy may be a less expensive alternative to other types of policies, and the trial court may, in its
 discretion, order that the parties purchase a term life insurance policy.
 3
 Because Husband has expressed disdain for the concept of sharing his pension with Wife, the trial court
 may determine on remand that Wife should pay the premiums, which can be listed as a liability assigned to
 Wife.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 7 of 8
 based on his tax consequences and has invited any error. We must agree with

 Wife.

[12] In Hardin v. Hardin, we held that, absent evidence, a trial court is not required to

 consider the potential tax consequences that would result from the property

 disposition of awarding to a party an individual retirement account in a

 dissolution. 964 N.E.2d 247, 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). We stated that, because

 the husband there had failed to present evidence of any future tax

 consequences, he had invited the alleged error and had waived the issue on

 appeal. Id. (citing Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

 ("[A] party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or

 which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct.")).

[13] Here, in support of his argument on appeal, Husband directs us to a single page

 of the transcript where he testified that he would have to pay taxes on his

 monthly pension benefits. But Husband did not present evidence and can only

 speculate as to the amount he will owe in taxes on those benefits. Accordingly,

 Husband has not preserved this issue for our review. See id.

[14] For all these reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with

 instructions.

 Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-DN-1202 | April 14, 2023 Page 8 of 8