Fritts v. Fritts, 34A02–1405–DR–361.

• Decision Date: 12 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 34A02–1405–DR–361.,34A02–1405–DR–361.
• Citation: 28 N.E.3d 258
• Parties: Ronald FRITTS, Appellant–Respondent, v. Linda FRITTS, Appellee–Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

28 N.E.3d 258

Ronald FRITTS, Appellant–Respondent

v.Linda FRITTS, Appellee–Petitioner.

No. 34A02–1405–DR–361.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 12, 2015.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 2015.

Jacob D. Winkler, Katherine J. Noel, Noel Law, Kokomo, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

Dan J. May, Kokomo, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

BARNES

, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Ronald Fritts appeals the trial court's ruling on a motion for relief from judgment filed by his ex-wife, Linda Christopher.¹ Linda cross-appeals, challenging the trial court's resolution of other issues raised by the parties post-dissolution. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Issues

[2] Ronald raises one issue, which we restate as:

I. whether the trial court properly declined to credit Linda with his proposed value of his pension's surviving spouse benefit.

[3] On cross-appeal, Linda raises five issues, which we restate as:

II. whether the trial court's calculation of Linda's child support arrearage failed to take into account a set-off included in the 2010 dissolution order;

III. whether the trial court properly calculated outstanding medical expenses owed by Linda;

IV. whether the trial court properly found that Ronald complied with the dissolution order when he paid Linda's previous attorney $4,000.00;

V. whether the trial court properly declined to credit Linda for various accounts; and

VI. whether Linda is entitled to appellate attorney fees based on Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E)

.

Facts

[4] Ronald and Linda were married in 1993. During the marriage, Ronald adopted one of Linda's daughters, Kelsey, who is now emancipated. The couple separated in June 2008, and, on July 16, 2008, Linda petitioned for dissolution of the marriage.

[5] In December 2008, during the dissolution proceedings, Ronald retired from Delphi. When he retired, he elected a surviving spouse benefit. As a result of Delphi's bankruptcy, administration rights of Ronald's pension were transferred to PBGC, and Ronald's pension was reduced. A February 2, 2010 letter from PBGC to Ronald indicated that, as of July 31, 2009, Ronald's current monthly benefit of $5,298.64 would be reduced to an estimated monthly benefit of $3,909.37. The letter also explained that the monthly surviving spouse benefit was estimated to be $2,541.09 upon Ronald's death and, if Linda predeceased Ronald, Ronald's monthly benefit would increase by $163.87.

[6] On December 14, 2009, the trial court issued an order dissolving the marriage and indicating that the remaining issues would be resolved in a bifurcated final hearing. On May 28, 2010, following a March 2010 hearing, the trial court issued a final dissolution order. It explained that, during the course of the proceedings, neither party obeyed the trial court's orders to pay child support for Kelsey. The trial court subtracted the amount Ronald owed from the amount Linda owed, which left Linda an outstanding balance of $2,310.00. The trial court then subtracted that amount from Linda's share of the marital estate. Regarding uninsured medical expenses for Kelsey, Ronald was required to pay the first 6%, and the balance was to be split between the parties, with Ronald paying 77% and Linda paying 23%.

[7] The trial court found “that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. To divide the marital property, [Linda] is awarded a judgment against [Ronald] in the amount of $48,705.55.” Appellant's App. p. 30. In its division of property, the trial court awarded Linda a Solidarity checking account and Ronald various Key Bank accounts. The trial court ordered Ronald “to pay a portion of [Linda's] attorney fees in the amount of $4,000.00 within forty five (45) days.” Id.

[8] The trial court found that Linda was “entitled to one half of the value of the pension based upon the coveture [sic] fraction formula.” Id. A pension analysis prepared by the parties valued the marital property portion of Ronald's $771,923.28 pension at $283,182.97. The trial court required Linda's attorney to prepare any documents necessary to carry out the order. The trial court also denied Linda's “motion to require [Ronald] to execute a surviving spouse option.” Id. The trial court's order made no mention of the surviving spouse benefit that Ronald had already elected.

[9] Linda appealed, challenging the date the trial court used to value certain assets and the trial court's calculation of child support. We affirmed the trial court's order. See Christopher v. Fritts, No. 34A04–1008–DR–508, 2011 WL 1047075 (Ind.Ct.App. March 23, 2011)

, trans. denied.

[10] Ronald made no payments to Linda as required by the order as to either the property equalization payment or the pension. Despite efforts by both parties, the parties agree that Ronald is unable to remove the surviving spouse benefit from his pension plan. The parties filed numerous motions related to the dissolution order, including Linda's motion for relief from judgment, motion for proceedings supplemental, and several summary judgment motions related to the pension. On January 13, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on all pending motions. Both Linda and Ronald testified, and both parties offered numerous exhibits. Ronald testified that, based on Social Security Administration actuarial data of their respective life expectancies and his own calculations, Linda would outlive him by sixteen years and would receive surviving spouse benefits totaling $487,889.00.

[11] Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order, which provided in part:

8. [Ronald] and [Linda] attempted to resolve the issue of eliminating the surviving spouse election with the PBGC.... This was unsuccessful.

9. The result of the PBGC's refusal to eliminate the surviving spouse benefit has created a drastic deviation from the Court's Ruling on May 28, 2010.

10. [Ronald's] pension benefit without the surviving spouse election, would have been $5,298.64. However, due to the surviving spouse election, [Ronald's] pension is only $3,909.37. Thus, due to the fact that the PBCG [sic] will not honor the Court's Ruling, [Ronald's] pension has been reduced by $1,389.27 per month (pursuant to PBGC calculations provided by both counsel).

11. The court cannot attempt to estimate the value of any “windfall” to [Linda]. To do so would be speculative and considering facts not in evidence. The coverture fraction formula was Ordered by the trial court and was not appealed. The parties are bound by that Order. [Ronald] is not entitled to credit for any “windfall” created by the pension issue.

12. [Linda] was further Ordered to pay [Ronald] support pursuant to the May 28, 2010 Ruling. She has failed to pay any support and has an arrearage in the sum of $9,460.00. [Linda] was also ordered to pay medical bills, which she did not. [Linda's] share of the medical bills was $1,074.00.

13. [Ronald] was awarded certain accounts with Key Bank, pursuant to the May 28, 2010 Ruling. [Ronald] alleged, and [Linda] admitted, she took funds from these accounts in the sum of $5,132.01.

* * * * *

15. In order to effectuate a 50/50 division of the marital assets, the May 28, 2010 Ruling awarded a Judgment to be paid by [Ronald] to [Linda] in the sum of $48,705.55. Interest in the sum of $14,155.30 had accrued as of the hearing. The total sum owed to [Linda] is $62,860.85.

16. The attorney fees Ordered paid to [Linda's] attorney has been paid to Mark Dabrowski, which the court finds complies with the court's Order.

17. The court finds that this Order effectively resolves all pending motions, including any Motions for Summary Judgment.

Appellant's App. pp. 23–24. The trial court explained that Ronald owed Linda $62,860.85 for the 2010 judgment and interest and $43,131.00 for the pension arrearage, for a total of $105,991.05. The trial court found that Linda owed Ronald $32,858.00 for the equity in the marital residence,² $10,534.00 for child support and medical bills, $600.00 for an appraisal fee, and $5,132.01 for the Key Bank accounts, for a total of $49,124.01. Setting off the amount Linda owed Ronald, the trial court ordered Ronald to pay Linda $62,860.05. The trial court also ordered the parties to pay their own attorney fees. Both parties now appeal.

Analysis

[12] Pursuant to Linda's request, the trial court issued written findings and conclusions. When reviewing such, we “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)

. We neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess witness credibility, and we view the evidence most favorably to the judgment. Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind.2011). “ ‘Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.’ ” Id. (quoting Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind.1997) ). “Appellate deference to the determinations of our trial 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.” Id.

I. Pension

[13] Ronald contends that the trial court's 2010 dissolution order is no longer just and reasonable because of the inability to eliminate the surviving spouse benefit, which, according to him, reduces his monthly pension benefit from $5,298.64 to $3,909.37 and creates a windfall for Linda. Ronald contends that the trial court should have given him credit toward any judgment he owes Linda based on what she might receive from the surviving spouse benefit after he dies.

[14] In response, Linda claims Ronald was made aware that the surviving spouse benefit could not be eliminated in June 2010 and did not appeal, file a motion to correct error, or file his own motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)

. Ronald claims that he had no reason to appeal the dissolution order because it was favorable...