Augspurger v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 30 January 2004
• Docket Number: No. 49A04-0111-CV-514.,49A04-0111-CV-514.
• Citation: 802 N.E.2d 503
• Parties: Gilbert Randall AUGSPURGER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Julie E. HUDSON, Appellee-Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

802 N.E.2d 503

Gilbert Randall AUGSPURGER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Julie E. HUDSON, Appellee-Petitioner.

No. 49A04-0111-CV-514.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

January 30, 2004.

Denise F. Hayden, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Sherwood P. Hill, Clinton E. Blanck, Maurer Rifkin & Hill, P.C., Carmel, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

The trial court entered a Decree of Dissolution (the Decree) on February 14, 2001, dissolving the marriage between Gilbert Randall Augspurger (Husband) and Julie Hudson (Wife). Pursuant to the Decree, Wife was awarded 90% of the marital estate, spousal maintenance in the amount of $421.07 per week, and $21,000 for future medical treatment of her physical and mental incapacity. The court further determined that Husband should pay a portion of Wife's attorney fees, an amount to be determined at a future hearing. Thereafter, Husband filed a Motion to Correct Error, which the trial court granted in part on September 5, 2001. In that order, the trial court granted Husband's motion as to the issue of property division. The trial court concluded that an equal division of the marital estate was proper and ordered the parties to attempt to negotiate an agreed division of property, noting that either party could request a hearing to determine the division should negotiation prove unsuccessful. Additionally, the court ordered spousal maintenance to continue until August 9, 2002 and noted that Wife may petition for additional relief if her condition does not improve. Finally, with regard to Husband's motion to correct error, the trial court reduced Husband's payment for Wife's future medical treatment to $6000. In this order, the trial court also ordered Husband to pay $17,360.60 of Wife's attorney fees.

Thereafter, on September 21, 2001, Husband filed a Motion to Reconsider Order of September 5, 2001, which the trial court does not appear to have ruled upon. On September 28, 2001, Wife filed a Praecipe for Hearing to Determine Division of Property. Prior to a hearing on the division of property, Husband filed the instant appeal on October 4, 2001. The trial court subsequently granted a motion to stay pending appeal. On January 18, 2002, Wife moved to dismiss the appeal because there was no final appealable order. Instead of dismissing the appeal, this court remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to hold a further hearing, if necessary, and to make its determination concerning the division of marital assets and debts. Following various delays, a hearing was held in the trial court on February 26, 2003. The trial court entered its Final Order of Division of Property the following day (Final Order). On appeal, Husband raises the following consolidated and restated issues for our review:

1. Was the trial court empowered to enter the Decree of February 14, 2001?

2. Did the 90/10 division of property in the Decree amount to an abuse of discretion?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding spousal maintenance to Wife?

4. Was the award for Wife's future medical treatment erroneous?

5. Did the trial court err in awarding attorney fees to Wife?

In her cross-appeal, Wife presents the following restated issues for review:

6. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in reducing Wife's share of the marital estate in its September 5, 2001 order on Husband's motion to correct error? 7. Did the trial court erroneously omit certain marital debts in the Final Order that were previously included in the Decree?

8. In the September 5, 2001 order on Husband's motion to correct error, did the trial court abuse its discretion in reducing the award for Wife's future medical treatment?

We affirm.

Husband and Wife were married on February 14, 1981, and no children were born to their marriage. On November 5, 1996, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of the parties' marriage. The complex procedural landscape of this case has been set forth in relevant part above. In sum, three basic issues were before the trial court: (1) how to divide the marital assets and debts; (2) whether to award spousal maintenance to Wife; and, (3) whether to award attorney fees to Wife. Relevant facts will be provided below where necessary.

Husband's Appeal

1.

Husband challenges the authority of the trial court in issuing the Decree on February 14, 2001. The Decree is signed by Robert J. Overton, as Judge of the Marion Superior Court, Civil Division, Room No. 10. Husband claims, "[n]owhere in the transcript, nor in the Record is there any order appointing Robert J. Overton as a judge in any capacity." Appellant's Brief at 24.

Following submission of Husband's appellate brief and upon Wife's motion, the trial court entered an order on May 15, 2003, correcting the clerk's record. The order directed the clerk to "correct the Clerk's Record in the appeal ... to reflect the true state of the Record by supplementing the Record by forwarding a certified copy of the Order appointing Robert J. Overton Judge Pro Tempore on February 14, 2001 ... to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals." Appellee's Supplemental Appendix at 36.

The supplemented record before us clearly reveals that David J. Dryer, Presiding Judge of the Marion County Superior Court, appointed Robert Overton "as Judge Pro Tempore of the Marion Superior Court, Civil Division, Court Room 10 on [February 14], 2001." Id. at 38. As a duly appointed judge pro tempore, Judge Overton had authority to enter the Decree.¹

2.

Husband asserts several arguments with regard to the division of property in the Decree. In particular, Husband contends that the 90/10 division in favor of Wife constitutes an abuse of discretion because the trial court did not state its reasons for deviating from the statutory presumption that an equal division is just and reasonable. See Ind.Code Ann. § 31-15-7-5 (West 1998). Moreover, Husband asserts that in the Decree, the trial court failed to consider the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of property was to become effective.

These arguments are not well taken because the trial court's subsequent order, granting in part Husband's motion to correct error, changed the division of property originally ordered in the Decree. Pursuant to the September 5, 2001 order, the marital estate was to be divided equally between the parties. Therefore, Husband's arguments regarding the original division of property in the Decree are moot.

3.

Husband challenges the trial court's award of spousal maintenance to Wife. In this regard, Husband argues that the diagnoses and recommended treatments offered by Wife's expert medical witnesses "are so confusing, commingled and disparate as to be unreliable." Appellant's Brief at 15. Husband further asserts that the trial court failed to make a specific finding that Wife was physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability to support herself was materially affected and failed to articulate any clear diagnosis of Wife's condition.²

Ind.Code Ann. § 31-15-7-2(1) (West 1998) provides for maintenance of an incapacitated spouse as follows:

If the court finds a spouse to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the incapacitated spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected, the court may find that maintenance for the spouse is necessary during the period of incapacity, subject to further order of the court.

The trial court's power to make an award of maintenance is wholly within its discretion, and we will reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 651 N.E.2d 1171 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. "The presumption that the trial court correctly applied the law in making an award of spousal maintenance is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to the consideration of a case on appeal." Id. at 1174.

In this case, the trial court entered findings of fact from which it concluded that Wife was entitled to incapacity maintenance.³ When a trial court enters special findings under Ind. Trial Rule 52, "[w]e will not set aside such findings unless clearly erroneous and [will] give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524, 526 (Ind.2001); see also Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 651 N.E.2d at 1173 ("[s]pecial findings and the judgment which rests upon those findings will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous in that the record is devoid of facts or inferences to support the findings, or that the judgment is unsupported by the findings"). Thus, when reviewing the trial court's entry of special findings, we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses. Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 651 N.E.2d 1171.

In the Decree, the trial court specifically found that "[Wife]'s medical condition has negatively and materially affected her ability to support herself financially." Appellant's Appendix at 27. The trial court then proceeded to detail the evidence presented by Wife's experts, C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D. and Leonard Dale Guyer, M.D.,⁴ regarding her medical condition. Of these lengthy findings, we recount some of the most relevant below:

14. Dr. Shealy's diagnosis was electromagnetic dysthymia, which meant her body's electrical system was out of balance, causing severe fatigue and mental confusion....

15. According to Dr. Shealy, the chances of totally normal mental brain function were not excellent. She could be improved 50% to 70%, but there was little chance that she will be able control [sic] her life the way normal people do.

16. Dr. Shealy believed [Wife's] ability to support herself financially was materially affected by her medical condition. In his opinion, [Wife] would have an extremely hard time finding and maintaining a regular job—even an entry-level clerical position—because...