Morphew v. Morphew

• Decision Date: 23 April 1981
• Docket Number: No. 1-880A216,1-880A216
• Parties: Jacqueline Kay MORPHEW, Respondent-Appellant, v. Melvin E. MORPHEW, Petitioner-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 770

419 N.E.2d 770

Jacqueline Kay MORPHEW, Respondent-Appellant, v. Melvin E. MORPHEW, Petitioner-Appellee.

No. 1-880A216.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

April 23, 1981.

Robert E. Stewart, Guido & Stewart, Danville, for respondent-appellant.

John M. Howard, Jr., Howard & Lawson, Danville, for petitioner-appellee.

RATLIFF, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Jacqueline Kay Morphew (Jacqueline) appeals from the decision of the Hendricks Superior Court dissolving her marriage to Melvin E. Morphew (Melvin), dividing their property, denying her maintenance, awarding her custody of the two minor children, and ordering Melvin to pay child support. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Jacqueline and Melvin were married on July 31, 1960. At the time of their marriage, they did not own substantial property and they both worked. Approximately sixteen months after their marriage, Jacqueline stopped working in order to raise their family. Other than working for nine months as a teacher's aide and selling cookware with her sister for a short time, Jacqueline At the dissolution hearing, Jacqueline contended she was physically unable to work and requested the court to order Melvin to pay her maintenance. Jacqueline testified that she had a problem with her legs in that they were painful and did not move at times. This problem was continuous; however, it would become worse if Jacqueline engaged in any strenuous activity. She stated that when she had a severe attack, she would be down both mentally and physically, and her neighbor and sister would take her to the grocery store and run other errands for her. Despite her physical problems, Jacqueline felt she was able to take care of her children and their home.

did not work outside of the home during the remainder of the marriage. Melvin held various jobs during the marriage, and at the time of the dissolution of the marriage he was a general foreman at the Allison Division of General Motors Corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana. His base salary was approximately two thousand one hundred twenty-six dollars ($2,126) per month. However, Melvin had worked a considerable amount of overtime in 1978 and 1979 so that his gross income was approximately thirty-three thousand eight hundred eighty dollars ($33,880) and forty thousand five hundred seventeen dollars ($40,517) respectively. Melvin continued to support his wife and children until the time of the dissolution hearing.

After a hearing on the petition for dissolution, the trial court awarded custody of the two minor children to Jacqueline. Melvin was ordered to pay fifty dollars ($50) per child, per week in child support along with the medical, dental, optical, and prescription expenses of the children. The trial court ordered that the house owned by Melvin and Jacqueline was to be owned by them as tenants in common. Jacqueline would be allowed to live in the house until the youngest child turned twenty-one or became emancipated, whichever came first. The court ordered both Melvin and Jacqueline to pay one-half of the mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance for the house. Jacqueline is to pay for all the maintenance of the house except for major repairs exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), the excess of which is to be paid equally by the parties. Jacqueline also received the household goods which were in the house, her life insurance policy, her individual bank account, and a 1974 Comet automobile. Melvin received the boat and trailer, his personal property, the household goods located at his residence, a 1979 Oldsmobile automobile, all stocks, bonds, and employee benefits through his employer, his life insurance subject to beneficiary restrictions, his fishing equipment, and his individual bank account. In addition, Melvin was ordered to pay all marital obligations and debts which totalled approximately eight to nine thousand dollars ($8,000-$9,000).

ISSUES

Jacqueline has raised the following issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court's special finding as to the amount of Melvin's earnings is substantiated by the evidence.

2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by ordering that Melvin could claim the children as dependents for federal and state income tax purposes.

3. Whether the trial court erred in excluding Jacqueline's testimony as to her physical condition.

4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Jacqueline was not physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that her ability to support herself was materially affected.

5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of child support to be paid by Melvin.

6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in making the disposition of the marital property.

DECISION

Issue One

Pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52(A), Melvin requested special findings be made by the trial court. The trial court did make extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which included the following finding of fact: "13. That the husband is employed at Detroit Diesel Allison Division of General Motors Corporation and effective December 1, 1979, his base salary is Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty-six and 44/100 Dollars ($2,126.44) per month." Jacqueline contends this finding is erroneous since Melvin's gross income was forty thousand, five hundred sixteen dollars and ninety-eight cents ($40,516.98) in 1979 and thirty-three thousand eight hundred eighty dollars ($33,880) in 1978. Further, she states, the court's Finding of Fact No. 13 is prejudicial to her since Melvin's income must be taken into account by the trial court when dividing the marital property and ordering child support.

Since the purpose of special findings is to provide the parties and reviewing courts with the theory on which the judge decided the case in order that the right of review for error may be effectively preserved, whether the findings are adequate depends upon whether they are sufficient to disclose a valid basis under the issues for the legal result reached. In re Marriage of Miles, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 5, 362 N.E.2d 171, trans. den. When determining whether they disclose a valid basis, we will accept the findings if they are supported by evidence of probative value. Id. We will, therefore, accept the trial court's Finding of Fact No. 13 if there is evidence of probative value to support it.

Although Melvin's gross income was greater than his base salary in 1977, 1978, and 1979 as a result of the considerable amount of overtime he worked, he was not guaranteed overtime in the future. His employer was reducing the amount of overtime work available to employees, and Melvin was not certain that he could continue physically to work seven days per week. In light of this testimony, we find nothing erroneous about the trial court's Finding of Fact No. 13.

Issue Two

Jacqueline contends the trial court also erred in making its Conclusion of Law No. 12 which states: "12. That the husband has contributed the major portion of support and maintenance for such minor children and shall thereby be entitled to claim them as dependents on his Federal and State Income Tax Returns." This conclusion, she states, can only be considered to operate prospectively since the trial court in its Conclusion of Law No. 35 ordered the parties to file a joint tax return for the taxable year of 1979. Jacqueline alleges the trial court exceeded its statutory authority and jurisdiction because Ind.Code 31-1-11.5-12 (Supp.1980), which authorizes the trial court to order child support, is silent as to the tax liability of the parties.

When construing special findings made by the trial court, we will construe them together and liberally in support of the judgment. In re Marriage of Miles, supra. We note that Conclusion of Law No. 35 does not absolutely require Melvin and Jacqueline to file a joint tax return in 1979, but instead, they are to do so only if such action would be in their best interests. However, we do agree with Jacqueline that Conclusion of Law No. 12 operates prospectively. Although the trial court did state Melvin has contributed the major portion of support and maintenance for the minor children, Conclusion of Law No. 12 immediately follows the conclusions of law which set out Melvin's support obligation and precedes the conclusion of law which requires Melvin to maintain health and life insurance policies for the benefit of his children. Further, if the trial court had intended for this conclusion of law to be effective only for 1979, it could have so stated and included it within Conclusion of Law No. 35 which deals with the joint filing of the parties' income tax returns for 1979.

We turn now to the issue, which is one of first impression in Indiana, of whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority and jurisdiction in providing for the dependency exemptions. ¹ The right of the United States to collect federal taxes has always been conceded to be independent of state law. United States v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., (1961) 368 U.S. 291, 82 S.Ct. 349, 7 L.Ed. 294; Leuschner v. First Western Bank & Trust Co., (9th Cir. 1958) 261 F.2d 705; In re Cal-Neva Lodge, Inc., (D.Nev.1960) 186 F.Supp. 187; Bensinger v. Davidson, (S.D.Cal.1956) 147 F.Supp. 240. In the case of Vinet v. Vinet, (1966) La.App., 184 So.2d 33, the Louisiana Court of Appeal held that it was outside the jurisdiction of a state court to pass on the question of which party is to receive the income tax exemption for dependents because the state court had no jurisdiction over the federal taxing authority. The Louisiana Court of Appeal stated that the determination of which party received the exemption was one for the proper taxing authority upon the basis of which party provided more than one-half of the total support. At the time of the Vinet decision, I.R.C. § 152(a) ² was the controlling criterion for which parent received the...