Northup v. Northup, 372A152
| Decision Date | 14 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 372A152,372A152 |
| Citation | 154 Ind.App. 469,290 N.E.2d 501 |
| Parties | LeRoy NORTHUP, Appellant, v. Lela NORTHUP, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
George Krstovich, Gary, for appellant.
Theodore Puchowski, Hammond, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant from a judgment for plaintiff-appellee in an action for absolute divorce. The judgment of the trial court awarded appellee an absolute divorce; the real estate owned as tenants by the entirety, subject to a mortgage as of April 9, 1971, in the sum of $7,393.50, together with all of the household goods and furnishings therein; and title to the 1968 Buick automobile in possession of appellee. Appellant was ordered to pay appellee the sum of $2,850 representing arrearages in support payments; and was further ordered to pay appellee's attorney the additional sum of $500 as attorney's fees; and to hold appellee harmless on any outstanding indebtedness other than the mortgage on the residence.
Appellant argues that 1) the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the property of the parties; 2) the property settlement was excessive; 3) the judgment is contrary to law in that the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the property; 4) the award of $2,850 as support arrearages was not supported by sufficient evidence; and, 5) the award of $500 additional attorney's fees was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Inasmuch as the first three allegations of error concern the same basic issue they will be dealt with together. At the basis of appellant's argument appears the assumption that a financial report prepared by an accountant conclusively established the appellant's net worth and that it should have become the cornerstone of the property settlement. A careful review of the record indicates that the net worth of the appellant was in controversy and that there was substantial evidence offered in contradiction to the accountant's report. This then becomes a question of fact which is to be determined by the trial court. This court has stated repeatedly that we will not weigh the evidence on appeal and will only view the evidence most favorable to the appellee. Pokraka v. Lummus Co. (1952), 230 Ind. 523, 104 N.E.2d 669.
Even if the net worth of the appellant had been conclusively established, it would not become the sole criterion upon which to base a division of the property between the parties. See: Bahre v. Bahre (1962), 133 Ind.App. 567, 571, 181 N.E.2d 639, 641 (transfer denied), which stated that the following factors may be investigated and considered in determining the amount of alimony in a particular case: 1) the existing property rights of the parties; 2) the amount of property owned and held by the husband and the source from which it came; 3) the financial condition and income of the parties and the ability of the husband to earn money; 4) whether or not the wife, by her industry and economy, has contributed to the accumulation of the husband's property; and 5) the separate estate of the wife.
The record before us indicates that most of the property was held jointly, that appellant's accountant estimated appellant's tax liability to be approximately $8,000 for 1970, which would indicate that he still had substantial ability to earn income, and that the accumulation of property was achieved through the joint efforts of the parties working in the construction industry for over 20 years.
The question of whether there has been an abuse of discretion must be apparent upon the face of the record. Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, 104, 173 N.E.2d 70 (transfer denied); Dragoo v. Dragoo (1962), 133 Ind.App. 394, 182 N.E.2d 434. In the instant case, the above facts, together with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terry v. Terry
...many times in recent Indiana decisions. For example, see Plese v. Plese (1970), 146 Ind.App. 545, 257 N.E.2d 318; Northup v. Northup (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 501; Miller v. Miller (1970), 146 Ind.App. 455, 256 N.E.2d 589; and Weiss v. Weiss (1974), Ind.App., 306 N.E.2d Other recent deci......
-
Castor v. Castor
...551, 201 N.E.2d 215; Cox v. Cox (1975), Ind.App., 322 N.E.2d 395; DeLong v. DeLong (1974), Ind.App., 315 N.E.2d 412; Northup v. Northup (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 501. While the cited cases were decided under the prior statute authorizing attorney's fees pendente lite, the permissive lang......
-
Hibbard v. Hibbard
...However, the husband has not shown this court any basis for holding the award of attorney fees to be excessive. In Northup v. Northup (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 501, 504, Chief Judge Hoffman had this to say in answer to appellant's contention that there was no evidence to support the awar......
-
DeLong v. DeLong, 2--673A131
...of a trial court as to attorney fees may be disturbed on appeal only where a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Northup v. Northup (1972) Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 501. Here, although wife's attorney spent some twelve hours in consultation, prepared the pleadings and participated in the ......