Newman v. Newman
| Decision Date | 20 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-875A222,2-875A222 |
| Citation | 355 N.E.2d 867,171 Ind.App. 202 |
| Parties | Donald E. NEWMAN, Appellant, v. Gretchen NEWMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David W. Foley, Mullin, Foley & Gilroy Indianapolis, for appellant.
John F. Ittenbach, Feeney & Ward, Indianapolis, for appellee.
On March 10, 1975, the trial court entered a decree dissolving the nineteen year marriage of appellant Donald E. Newman (Husband) and appellee Gretchen Newman (Wife). The award of custody of the three minor children (aged 17, 13 and 10) to Wife was not contested, but Husband appeals from that part of the decree which awards substantially all of the property to Wife. He contends that as a physically disabled husband he is entitled to a greater portion than he received. We find no abuse of discretion and therefore affirm.
Husband is totally disabled by multiple sclerosis. At the time of trial he was forty-one years old and has been confined to a wheelchair for seven years. Before he became incapacitated in 1968 he had earned approximately $10,000.00 annually as an employee of the Ford Motor Company, since then he has been receiving $250.00 per month in Social Security benefits for himself, $240.00 per month in Social Security benefits for the support of his three minor children, $91.00 per month in retirement payments from Ford, and $323.00 per month in disability payments from the John Hancock Insurance Company, the latter to end in January, 1984.
There is no evidence that Wife is not in good health. In the year preceding trial she earned $3566.00 driving a school bus (which she had been doing for seven years) and earned $370.00 working as a part-time bartender. At the time of trial she was also working three hours a day for H. & R. Block at an hourly salary of $2.10.
Wife was awarded the mortgaged family residence, net value $10,500.00, which she intended to sell. She was also awarded the furniture, appliances, station wagon and 1974 tax refund checks, all worth approximately $4,000.00, counter-balanced, however, by the order that she assume debts totalling $3,820.00. Husband was awarded sixty shares of Ford Motor Company stock valued at $2,100.00 and a small inherited parcel of real estate valued at $200.00. He was ordered to transfer each month to Wife the $240.00 Social Security payment for the support of the children, and to pay her an additional $21.00 weekly for the support of the two younger children. 1
Husband contends that the court erred by failing to award him an interest in the equity of the family residence. He cites Zagajewski v. Zagajewski (1974), Ind.App., 314 N.E.2d 843, as authority. There we found an abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of the family residence to the Wife without making 'a compensating provision for the permanently disabled husband which bears a reasonable relationship to the past contributions of the parties and to their prospective earning capacity. . . .' Zagajewski, supra, at 846. An important factor in that decision was the wife's earning capacity. She was a school teacher earning some three times as much as the disability benefits husband was then receiving and upon her retirement she would receive either teacher's retirement benefits or maximum Social Security benefits.
This case is distinguishable from Zagajewski since there is no great disparity between Wife's present income and that of Husband. More importantly this is an action for 'dissolution of marriage' pursuant to the provisions of Ind.Ann.Stat. § 31-1-11.5-1 to 24 (Burns Code Ed., Supp. 1976) while Zagajewski was a divorce case governed by the now repealed Chapter 31-1-12 of the Indiana Code, under which the court had no authority to make orders for future maintenance of disabled spouses, except when the cause was incurable insanity. 2 An alimony award, however, could serve that purpose. Wellington v. Wellington (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 347. Also, as Zagajewski holds, a spouse's physical incapacity to earn income was a proper consideration in dividing the marital property. However, that division, once made, was not subject to modification. Thus, when dividing property and awarding or withholding alimony, the trial court was required to determine the existing situation, speculate on future developments, weigh the separate needs of the parties, and then make a final, unalterable decision. An...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abney v. Abney
...Maintenance of an incapacitated spouse is subject to future modification. I.C. 31-1-11.5-9(c) (Burns Code Ed.1977); Newman v. Newman (2d Dist. 1976) Ind.App., 355 N.E.2d 867. ...
-
Geberin v. Geberin
...his parents. 4 We will not speculate as to those changes in the decree which would render it an abuse of discretion. Newman v. Newman (1976), Ind.App., 355 N.E.2d 867, 870. We have reviewed that property disposition, and we conclude that it is supported by the Child Support Julia was awarde......
-
Farthing v. Farthing
...of said spouse during any such incapacity, Subject to further order of the court." (Emphasis supplied). See also Newman v. Newman (2d Dist. 1976) Ind.App., 355 N.E.2d 867. The burden of proof upon a petitioner for modification of a maintenance award has yet to be established under Indiana l......
-
Marriage of Sharp, In re
...jurisdiction; therefore, Elinor may not bring the issue of spousal maintenance before the trial court. We agree. In Newman v. Newman (1976), 171 Ind.App. 202, 355 N.E.2d 867, this Court approved of a trial court retaining continuing jurisdiction over the issue of possible maintenance to be ......