Lawless v. Lawless
| Decision Date | 19 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 58A01–1308–DR–366.,58A01–1308–DR–366. |
| Citation | 13 N.E.3d 550 (Table) |
| Parties | Russell LAWLESS, Appellant–Petitioner, v. Leslie LAWLESS, Appellee–Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Leanna Weissmann, Lawrenceburg, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Kevin J. Moser, Kevin Moser Law PLLC, Covington, KY, Attorney for Appellee.
Russell Lawless (“Husband”) and Leslie Lawless (“Wife”) were divorced, and allocated assets and debts in the marital pot. Husband appeals the dissolution court's denial of his motion to correct error, which challenged the court's property division.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to include only pre-petition debt and assets in the marital pot.
Husband presents several issues for our review. We restate these as whether the dissolution court abused its discretion when it:
Husband and Wife were married on March 2, 2004. The couple shared two children born before the marriage, T.L. and E.L., and the marriage produced a third child, R.L. Husband and Wife acquired few assets during the marriage; the only asset of substantial value was Husband's employer-sponsored pension plan.
On March 15, 2010, Husband filed for dissolution of the marriage. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, Husband filed for bankruptcy, and the marital home was foreclosed upon. Also during the pendency of the dissoution proceedings, and contrary to the dissolution court's orders concerning disposition of marital assets during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, husband liquidated the pension plan and used the funds to pay for a truck and other expenses.
On January 19, 2013, the trial court entered a dissolution decree which provided for parenting time, child support, and final distribution of the marital assets. The dissolution decree fixed the total liabilities of the marriage at $4,183.90. Finding that the only asset of the marriage was Husband's retirement plan, the court fixed its value at $26,096.21, its value as of the date of Husband's liquidation of the assets in the plan. The dissolution court found that Wife was paying all remaining marital debts and that Husband's liquidation of the retirement plan violated the preliminary orders in the case. The court thus allocated 58% of the marital assets, or $15,140.06 to Wife. Husband was allocated the remainder, totaling $10,956.16, and judgment was entered against him in the amount of $13,925.06, which represented the total value of Wife's portion of the marital assets, less $1,215.00 Wife had withdrawn from Husband's bank account during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings.
On February 13, 2013, Husband filed a motion to correct error.1 A hearing was conducted on the motion on May 13, 2013, and on June 21, 2013 the trial court entered its order on the motion. The trial court did not modify any facet of the distribution of marital assets or liabilities.
This appeal ensued.
Husband appeals from a motion to correct error concerning the dissolution court's determination and distribution of marital property. We review a trial court's decision on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 230 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), trans. denied.
Marital property includes both assets and liabilities. McCord v.. McCord, 852 N.E.2d 35, 45 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied. “Indiana subscribes to the ‘one-pot’ theory of marital possessions.” In re Marriage of Edwards and Bonilla–Vega, 983 N .E.2d 619, 621 (Ind.Ct.App.2013) (citing Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 58 (Ind.2002). The marital estate is presumed to include all property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, and all property acquired as a result of the parties' joint efforts. Ind.Code § 31–15–7–4(a). The marital pot generally closes on the date the dissolution petition is filed, and thus debts incurred by one party after the dissolution petition has been filed are not included in the marital pot. Alexander v. Alexander, 927 N.E.2d 926, 940 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), trans. denied.
The division of marital assets is within the discretion of the trial court. Id. at 933. We will reverse only when the court abuses its discretion. Id An appealing party must overcome the presumption that the court complied with applicable law, which is “one of the strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal.” Id We do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses, and consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's disposition of the marital property. Id.
Husband first contends that the dissolution court abused its discretion when it determined the total amount of the liabilities of the marriage. Husband challenges numerous liabilities as having been either improperly included in the marital pot or improperly calculated. These include $2,500 in court costs and probation fees incurred by the couple's oldest child, T.L.; several dental and medical bills incurred by Wife after the date of the filing of the petition for dissolution of the marriage; a school-related bill for the couple's middle child, E.L.; and several other medical bills for which Husband claims the dissolution court did not have sufficient evidence to include in the marital pot, either due to the date of the expense or the family member for whose care the bill applied.
Turning first to the probation fees, Husband argues that the court erred because while the total probation costs for T.L. were $2,500, only a portion of these costs were paid after the filing of the dissolution petition. He also argues that, because T.L. was emancipated, the debt was personal to T.L., and it was thus an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have included any part of those fees in the marital pot.
We do not agree with Husband that the court abused its discretion in including the probation fees. Both Husband and Wife testified that they had paid T.L.'s probation fees before the dissolution petition, and it was thus not unreasonable for the court to include the remainder of those fees in the marital pot. We do, however, agree with Husband that the dissolution court abused its discretion in including the entirety of the $2,500 into the marital pot. Again, both Husband and Wife testified that the probation fees were paid by both before Husband filed his petition to dissolve the marriage. Moreover, the documentary evidence Wife submitted reflects that of the $2,500, all of which was paid in full, only $350 was paid on a date after the dissolution petition. (Ex. E.) The evidence adduced during the hearing established that Wife paid the post-petition balance. Thus, the proper amount of the debt for inclusion in the marital pot was $350. To the extent the trial court included the entirety of the probation fees, the court erred.
To the extent Wife incurred medical or dental costs for herself after the date of Husband's petition to dissolve the marriage, these were not properly included in the marital pot. For example, the River Valley Imaging invoice that the dissolution court found was a marital debt shows a post-petition date of service for Wife; this was not properly included in the marital pot. Some of the Collection Associates bills do not appear to pertain to care for the children, but are specific to Wife and bear post-petition dates of service; to the extent the bills relate to Wife's medical care, these, too, were not appropriate for inclusion in the marital pot.
Other bills, however, identify Wife or Husband as the guarantor for the bills but relate to medical care or educational costs for the couple's children or predate the dissolution petition. These would properly be included in the marital pot. To the extent that the trial court included into the marital pot bills related to Wife's post-petition medical expenses, this was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, upon remand we instruct the trial court to redetermine the total amount of marital debts based upon the dates on which debts were incurred and on whose behalf, and to take into consideration payments made before and after the petition date.
Husband also contends that the dissolution court abused its discretion when it assessed the value of the pension at $26,096.21, the account balance when Husband liquidated the account.
Valuation of marital property is left to the trial court's discretion. Hartley v. Hartley, 862 N.E.2d 274, 283 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). Trial courts are required to “consider the tax consequences of the property disposition with respect to the present and future economic circumstances of each party.” I.C. § 31–15–7–7. And when assessing value, “[w]here the trial court's valuation of property is within the range of values supported by the evidence, the court does not abuse its discretion.” Goossens v. Goossens, 829 N.E.2d 36, 38 (Ind.Ct.App.2005).
Husband objects to the trial court's selection of the date Husband liquidated the retirement account, April 2, 2011, rather than on March 15, 2010, the date on which Husband filed the petition for dissolution of the marriage. The date of valuation of an asset is left to the discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of discretion. Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind.1996). Though the date selected for valuation of an asset may allocate the risk of a change in the asset's value to one or another party, such an allocation of risk is within the trial court's discretion....
To continue reading
Request your trial