Akers v. Akers
Decision Date | 13 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 33A01-9910-CV-354,33A01-9910-CV-354 |
Citation | 729 N.E.2d 1029 |
Parties | Donald J. AKERS, Appellant-Respondent, v. Charlotte AKERS, Appellee-Petitioner. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David W. Stone, IV, Stone Law Office & Legal Research, Anderson, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
R. Scott Hayes, Hayes Copenhaver & Crider, New Castle, Indiana, Attorney for Appellee.
Appellant-respondent Donald J. Akers ("Husband") challenges the trial court's division of marital property upon the dissolution of his marriage to appellee-petitioner Charlotte Akers ("Wife"). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Husband raises two issues for our review:
I. whether the trial court erred in treating his unused sick days as a marital asset subject to division; and
II. whether the trial court erred in failing to award him a greater portion of the marital pot in consideration of the assets he had previously acquired and brought into the marriage.
The twenty-five-year marriage of Husband and Wife was dissolved on May 5, 1999. At the time of the divorce, Husband, a teacher with the New Castle Community School Corporation ("the school corporation"), had accumulated 201 unused sick days.1 The agreement governing his employment with the school corporation contained the following language with respect to unused sick days and retirement benefits:
(Emphasis added). In accordance with the formula identified by the employment agreement, the trial court assessed the maximum value of Husband's unused sick days at $11,687.50.2
In its dissolution decree, the trial court concluded that "an equitable division [of the marital property] would be 50% to [Husband] and 50% to [Wife]." In effecting what it believed to be an equal division of the marital pot, the court valued the property awarded to Husband at $202,343.993 and the property awarded to Wife at $91,997.00. Then, "[i]n order to balance the distribution of marital assets to the parties," the trial court ordered Husband to pay $49,386.68 to Wife. Husband now appeals.
The disposition of marital assets is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only where that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Chase v. Chase, 690 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). "When a party challenges the trial court's division of marital property, he must overcome a strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute, and that presumption is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal." In re Marriage of Bartley, 712 N.E.2d 537, 542 (Ind. Ct.App.1999). In reviewing a trial court's disposition of the marital assets, we focus on "`what the court did, not what it could have done.'" Chase, 690 N.E.2d at 756 ( ). We may not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, and we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's disposition of the marital property. In re Marriage of Dall, 681 N.E.2d 718, 720 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997). Although the facts and reasonable inferences might allow for a different conclusion, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Bartley, 712 N.E.2d at 542.
Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that in an action for dissolution of marriage, the trial court shall divide the property of the parties, regardless of whether it was:
It is well settled in Indiana that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division. Dowden v. Allman, 696 N.E.2d 456, 458 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); see also IND.CODE § 31-9-2-98 ( ). However, the question of whether a spouse's accumulation of unused sick days is a marital asset for purposes of property division is one of first impression in this state. We conclude that in this case, it is not.
The record reflects that Husband had accrued more than 200 unused sick days at the time of the divorce. His teaching contract for the current school year contained a retirement benefits clause providing for payment for a maximum of 187 of those days upon retirement. However, we discern no evidence, nor does Wife point us to any, that Husband had a present right to be paid for his sick days other than by becoming ill. See In re Marriage of Battles, 564 N.E.2d 565, 567 (Ind.Ct. App.1991) ( ). To the contrary, Husband testified that the terms of his teaching contract, including those governing retirement benefits, were subject to renegotiation and that he could not foresee what contract provisions would be in effect at the time of his retirement. Indeed, it was mere speculation for the trial court to assume that Husband would not suffer any illness and would retain at least 187 unused sick days at their current value until retirement. While he certainly accumulated these sick days during his marriage to Wife, the accumulation of sick days had only a future value that was indeterminate and speculative at best.4See IND.CODE § 31-9-2-98 ( ).
(affirming trial court's decision that employees take nothing by way of their complaint for compensation from former employer for accrued sick days). Likewise, Husband's accumulation of unused sick days had no present value, was "contingent and speculative in nature," and thus, not capable of division as a marital asset.5 See Mullins, 638 N.E.2d at 856. We therefore reverse the trial court's treatment of Husband's unused sick days as a marital asset subject to distribution between the parties and remand with instructions to recalculate the marital pot accordingly.
Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-56 creates a rebuttable presumption that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. Dall,681 N.E.2d at 720 (statute) predecessor . A trial court may deviate from an equal division provided that it sets forth a rational basis for its decision. Id. Here, while the trial court articulated an intent to divide the marital property equally, it awarded Husband more than 50% of the marital assets.7 Nevertheless, Husband argues that he should have received an even greater portion of the marital pot because of the following items he claims to have previously acquired and brought into the marriage: a Henry County Savings & Loan savings account containing an estimated $8,000.00; a Farm Bureau life insurance policy worth $10,000.00; and a 1972 Ford Pinto, a 1973 Duster, a bedroom suite, a couch, two end tables, a chair, some lamps, and some camping gear valued at $3,500.00. See IND.CODE § 31-15-7-5(2)(A). In addition, he seeks compensation for $2,000.00 he claims to have deposited in Wife's IRA.
We cannot say that Husband has overcome the tremendous burden necessary to warrant reversal. "[T]his Court considers only the trial court's disposition of [the marital] property as a whole, not item by item." Raval v. Raval, 556 N.E.2d 960, 961 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). Keeping in mind the great deference we pay to the trier of fact, it is apparent that the trial court gave due consideration to Indiana Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Marriage of Abrell
...accumulated sick days were not a marital asset for purposes of property distribution in a dissolution of marriage case. Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind.App.2000). In Akers, the husband had accumulated more than 200 unused sick days at the time of dissolution. Akers, 729 N.E.2d at 1032.......
-
the Marriage Ofmarta Doris Cardona v. Castro
...and may be dissipated when the employee spouse uses the leave time. Abrell, 337 Ill.Dec. 940, 923 N.E.2d at 800; Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029, 1032–33 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); Thomasian, 556 A.2d at 681; see also Lesko,457 N.W.2d at 702 (Holbrook, J., dissenting). These courts further note tha......
-
Cardona v. Castro, 09CA1996.
...vacation and sick days are not marital property subject to distribution in a dissolution of marriage action.”); Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029, 1032–33 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (reversing trial court's treatment of unused sick days as a marital asset); Bratcher v. Bratcher, 26 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Ky......
-
Wiech v. Wiech, A–14–747.
...(accrued vacation and sick days are not marital property subject to distribution in dissolution of marriage action); Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind.App. 2000) (reversing trial court's treatment of unused sick days as marital asset); Bratcher v. Bratcher, 26 S.W.3d 797 (Ky.App. 2000) (......
-
§ 7.12 Other Employee Compensation and Fringe Benefits
...re Marriage of Abrell, 236 Ill.2d 249, 337 Ill. Dec. 940, 923 N.E.2d 791 (2010) (sick leave and vacation time). Indiana: Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. App. 2000) (sick leave). Kentucky: Bratcher v. Bratcher, 26 S.W.3d 797 (Ky. App. 2000) (vacation time). [958] See In re Marriage of ......