Marriage of Coyle, In re

• Decision Date: 30 October 1996
• Docket Number: No. 07A01-9510-CV-335,07A01-9510-CV-335
• Citation: 671 N.E.2d 938
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Anita C. COYLE, Appellant-Respondent, and John A. Coyle, Appellee-Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 938

671 N.E.2d 938

In re the MARRIAGE OF Anita C. COYLE, Appellant-Respondent and John A. Coyle, Appellee-Petitioner.

No. 07A01-9510-CV-335.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Oct. 30, 1996.

Eric N. Allen, Brand & Allen, Greenfield, for Appellant-Respondent.

Thomas M. Barr, Nashville, for Appellee-Petitioner.

OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In this case we are asked to consider the meaning of dissipation of property under the Dissolution of Marriage Act. Anita C. Coyle appeals from the trial court's decree which dissolved her marriage to John A. Coyle. She disputes the trial court's division of the marital estate as unjust and unreasonable and, in particular, challenges its finding that she had dissipated marital property.

We remand with instructions.

ISSUES

We consolidate and restate the issues presented as:

(1) What species of conduct constitutes a dissipation of property under the Dissolution of Marriage Act, and

(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the marital estate.

FACTS

John and Anita were married in 1983. Although the parties did not have children together, both had children from prior marriages. John's son and Anita's daughter lived with the couple for a period of time. Both John and Anita brought assets into the marriage, and they earned nearly equal incomes during the time they were married. In 1993, John filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. After hearings, the trial court entered its detailed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Marriage Dissolution on June 28, 1995.

The court found that Anita had dissipated marital property. ¹ Specifically, $7,000.00 of marital funds was used to help pay for college expenses for Anita's daughter Julie. Another $10,000.00 was spent over a period of several years to assist Julie with the purchase of three used automobiles. The court found that Anita chose not to pursue a contribution from Julie's father, a 30-year Chrysler employee, despite her "absolute legal entitlement" to do so. Although John testified that these expenditures were loans, neither he nor Anita included any loans receivable on their respective financial declarations.

The court also found dissipation in the lost opportunity to realize interest income on a contract that Anita had entered into with her daughter Christine and her husband for the sale of Anita's home in Hancock County. The initial five-year agreement, made before Anita's marriage to John, required the purchasers to make monthly payments to Anita equal to her mortgage payments, and the entire balance ("balloon payment") was due in December 15, 1987. Anita was not paid interest under the terms of that contract.

At the end of five years, Anita allowed Christine and her husband to continue installment payments under the terms of the original contract. The same parties entered into a second contract which extended the balloon payment date to December 15, 1993, and they later moved the balloon payment to December 15, 1996. John, who was not a party to the contract, had objected to renewal of the contract without interest. The trial court found that disagreement over this matter was partially responsible for the dissolution. The court then charged Anita with $11,163.00 in dissipation for the interest that would have been earned on the contract from December 15, 1987, the date that the original balloon payment was due, to the date of separation.

Based upon those determinations and other factors, the court awarded John 63% and Anita 37% of the total marital estate valued at $501,720.00. Anita appeals from that distribution.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Standard of Review

The trial court must divide the property of the parties in a just and reasonable manner, and that includes property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. IND.CODE § 31-1-11.5-11(b); Castaneda v. Castaneda, 615 N.E.2d 467, 469 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). An equal division of the marital property is presumed to be just and reasonable. IND.CODE § 31-1-11.5-11(c). Cowden v. Cowden, 661 N.E.2d 894, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). However, that presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence of the following factors:

(1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing.

(2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse prior to the marriage or through inheritance or gift.

(3) The economic circumstances of each 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 in that residence for such periods as the court may deem just to the spouse having custody of any children.

(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.

(5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to a final division of property and final determination of the property rights of the parties.

I.C. § 31-1-11.5-11(c) (emphasis added); Cowden, 661 N.E.2d at 896. The party challenging the trial court's property division must overcome a strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute. Hodowal v. Hodowal, 627 N.E.2d 869, 871 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. That presumption is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal. In re Marriage of Stetler, 657 N.E.2d 395, 398 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied.

Subject to the statutory presumption that an equal distribution of assets is just and reasonable, the division of marital property is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Simpson v. Simpson, 650 N.E.2d 333, 335 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). We reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. On review, we may not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, and we consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's disposition of marital property. Id.

Issue One: Dissipation of Assets

Anita contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that she had dissipated marital assets in transactions involving her children. As previously stated, the conduct of the parties during a marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property is a statutory factor that may be used to rebut the presumption that an equal division of the marital property is just and reasonable. See IND.CODE § 31-1-11.5-11(c)(4). Dissipation is not defined in the Act. Anita maintains that without a clear legislative or judicial definition of the term, parties to a dissolution are allowed to revisit and dispute "virtually any financial transaction or personal decision affecting finances" made during the marriage in a search for conduct that may be characterized as dissipation. Brief of Appellant at 51.

Fault is not relevant in dissolution proceedings except as related to the disposition or dissipation of marital assets. Hunt v. Hunt, 645 N.E.2d 634, 637 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). One spouse's claim of improvident spending by the other spouse can be a powerful weapon in an attempt to secure a larger share of the marital estate. However, a trial court presiding over a dissolution proceeding in which dissipation is an issue should not be required to perform an audit of expenditures made during the marriage in order to determine which spouse was the more prudent investor and spender. See Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 597 So.2d 835, 837 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992). The institution of marriage would be ill-served if spouses were encouraged to maintain a continuous record of expenditures and transactions during the marriage for use in the event they are ever divorced.

This court has reviewed findings of dissipation in various contexts under an abuse of discretion standard. See e.g., Stutz v. Stutz, 556 N.E.2d 1346, 1349-50 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (wife's disposing of marital assets at phenomenal rate without regard to consequences of her actions justified deviation from equal division of property); Planert v. Planert, 478 N.E.2d 1251, 1253-54 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (husband's drinking problem which was major contributing factor to failure of business justified unequal division of marital estate). While those cases have necessarily turned on specific facts, in this case, we shall consider more generally the nature of "dissipation" as that term is used in the Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Our analysis begins with the cardinal rule of statutory construction that undefined words and phrases in a statute are to be given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning. IND.CODE § 1-1-4-1(1). Courts may consult English language dictionaries to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutory term. State Bd. of Accounts v. Indiana Univ. Found., 647 N.E.2d 342, 347 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. The term "dissipate" is defined as "[t]o destroy or waste, as to expend funds foolishly." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 473 (6th ed. 1990).

Waste and misuse are the hallmarks of dissipation. Our legislature intended that the term carry its common meaning denoting "foolish" or "aimless" spending. In re Marriage of Roberts, 670 N.E.2d 72, 76 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). Dissipation has also been described as the frivolous, unjustified spending of marital assets which includes the concealment and misuse of marital property. Volesky v. Volesky, 412 N.W.2d 750, 752-53 (Minn.Ct.App.1987). It generally involves the use or diminution of the marital estate for a purpose unrelated to the marriage and does not include the use of marital property to meet routine financial obligations. See id.

Whether a dissipation has occurred cannot be determined by applying one factor. The proper inquiry requires the trial court to...