Johnson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 08 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--575A85,3--575A85 |
| Parties | Walter E. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellant, v. Jill T. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Donald E. Transki, Michigan City, for appellant.
Lee W. Dabagia, Sweeney, Fox, Sweeney, Winski & Dabagia, Michigan City, for appellee.
On December 5, 1974, the trial court entered a decree dissolving the marriage between the parties to this appeal. The husband's appeal challenges the division of property made by the court and the award of $575 attorney's fees for the benefit of the wife in defending the motion to correct errors and the prosecution of this appeal. We find that the husband has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in either award. We therefore affirm the judgment.
Division of the property of the parties under the dissolution statute shall be made in a 'just and reasonable manner.' This determination lies within the broad discretion of the trial court, and we may reverse only where an abuse of discretion is clearly demonstrated.
The statute mandates that:
'In determining what is just and reasonable the court shall consider the following factors:
(a) the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, including the contribution of a spouse as homemaker;
(b) the extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse prior to the marriage or through inheritance or gift;
(c) the economic circumstances of the spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell therein for such periods as the court may deem just to the spouse having custody of any children;
(d) the conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property;
(e) the earning ability of the parties as related to a final division of property and final determination of the property rights of the parties.'
IC 1971, 31--1--11.5--11, Burns Code Ed. (1975 Supp.).
The question presented in this case is whether the court abused its discretion under the facts and circumstances by awarding virtually all of the tangible property theretofore acquired by the parties to the wife.
These assets consisted of the marital residence, a 1973 Plymouth auto and the household furniture, which was admittedly well worn and worth perhaps $700. The wife's evidence revealed that the residence had been purchased for $28,500 and had become run down and in need of repairs. There was a mortgage balance due upon the residence of $12,700 which the decree required the wife to assume, along with the property taxes of $433 then overdue. The husband was ordered to be primarily responsible for the payment of their remaining obligations consisting of $800 owed on the automobile, accounts with J. C. Penney and Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co., and the remainder due on an orthodonture bill for three of the children.
Other evidence revealed that the parties had been married for twenty years and had four children. Two children, aged nineteen, were attending college. Custody of the other two, aged 14 and 12, was awarded to the wife.
At the time of the dissolution the husband was 56 and was employed as Director of Transportation for the Wisconsin Paper and Pulp Manufacturing Association at a salary of $20,000 per year. He earns an additional $52 per month from other work he performs on Saturdays. From prior employment he will be eligible for railroad retirement benefits at age 65. He is not eligible for Social Security, and as an exspouse, the wife has no potential to receive benefits under his railroad retirement.
The wife was fifty years of age and was earning $3,120 per year working for a radio station at the time of the dissolution. She had no special skills or training that would enhance her future employability.
In terms of statutory considerations, the assets were acquired during and as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holman v. Holman
...v. Barnett (1983), Ind.App., 447 N.E.2d 1172; Burkhart v. Burkhart (1976), 169 Ind.App. 588, 349 N.E.2d 707; Johnson v. Johnson (1976), 168 Ind.App. 653, 344 N.E.2d 875. When making an award of attorneys' fees in a dissolution proceeding, "the trial court must consider the resources of the ......
-
Marriage of Davidson, In re
...1148. The trial court may choose to award an amount less than the full reasonable value of an attorney's services. Johnson v. Johnson (1979), 168 Ind.App. 653, 344 N.E.2d 875. The evidence on the reasonableness of the attorney fees requested here is meager at best if not virtually nonexiste......
-
McBride v. McBride
...of marital assets to one party); In re Marriage of Lewis, (1977) Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 855 ($34,000 to $2,000). Johnson v. Johnson, (1976) 168 Ind.App. 653, 344 N.E.2d 875; Trimble v. Trimble, (1976) Ind.App., 339 N.E.2d 614 (home and furnishings to $2,000). The trial court's prerogatives an......
-
Marriage of Hirsch, In re
...360 N.E.2d 41. The trial court may choose to award less than the full "reasonable value of the attorney's services." Johnson v. Johnson (1976), Ind.App., 344 N.E.2d 875; DeLong v. DeLong, supra, 315 N.E.2d 412; Mathews v. Mathews (1972), 151 Ind.App. 70, 278 N.E.2d The trial court ordered R......