Perkins v. Harding
| Decision Date | 28 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 40A01-0410-CV-433.,40A01-0410-CV-433. |
| Citation | 836 N.E.2d 295 |
| Parties | Mary (Harding) PERKINS, Appellant-Respondent, v. Steve HARDING, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Brian J. Belding, Rogers & Dove, North Vernon, for Appellant.
Mary Perkins appeals the denial of her motion to correct error following the dissolution of her marriage to Steve Harding. Perkins raises one issue on appeal, which we expand and restate as:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it decided which property to include in the marital pot; and
2. Whether the court's division of assets was an abuse of discretion. We affirm and remand with an instruction.1
Perkins and Harding married on March 10, 2001. Harding filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on August 1, 2003. The court divided the parties' debts and assets on April 6, 2004, in an order that provided:
Comes now the Court, and after hearing held on April 2, 2004, in which [Harding] and [Perkins] appeared with counsel, now finds that this Court has venue proper over the parties hearing [sic] named and the subject matter and venue proper in Jennings County, and orders [Harding's] attorney to do an order on the divorce decree and [Perkins'] former name restored.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that [Harding] & [Perkins] shall get the following debts and assets as follows:
Mr. Harding's Assets
1/2 Home Federal Money Market $5,803.00
1/2 Savings Account $1,717.20
First Community Account $ 507.36
Personal Property $6,688.84
2000 Harley Motorcycle $ (?)
_________
$ (?)
Mr. Harding's Debts
Dental Bill $ 729.00
Dodge Ram Debt $3,000.00
1/2 Napa Debt $ 591.46
Motorcycle Debt $ (?)
_________
$ (?)
Ms. [Perkins'] Assets
1/2 Home Federal Money Market $5,803.00
Home Federal Checking $ 529.66
1/2 Savings Account $1,717.21
1991 Chevrolet Bus $ (?)
1999 Freightliner Bus $ (?)
Equity in Home $ (?)
_________
$ (?)
Ms. [Perkins'] Debts
1/2 Napa Debt $ 591.45
Bus Debt $ (?)
_________
$ (?)
(Appellant's App. at 3-4.) A week later, the court entered an order dissolving the marriage.
Each party filed a motion to correct error. Perkins' motion alleged:
1. That the Court's division of the bank accounts is contrary to the evidence that was presented.
2. That pursuant to respondent's bank account worksheet, only $3,443.41 was accumulated for all bank accounts during the parties' marriage. Therefore, the petitioner should only be entitled to one-half (1/2) of said amount from the sum of $1,717.21.
3. That the evidence presented was that a majority of the funds in respondent's Home Federal Money Market account was attributable to a sale of a 1992 Dodge she owned prior to marriage.
4. That the bank account balances per the Order do not correspond with the proper bank accounts.
5. That the evidence showed that [Perkins] had to replace most of the parties [sic] personal property. However, [Perkins] did not receive any credit for replacing said property.
(Id. at 6.) After a hearing, the court denied both motions.
Perkins appeals the denial of her motion to correct error.2 A trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to correct error. Dughaish ex rel. Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 167 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh'g denied, trans. denied 753 N.E.2d 2 (Ind.2001). We will reverse its decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or reasonable inferences therefrom, that were before the court, or if the trial court's decision "is without reason or is based upon impermissible reasons or considerations." Id.
Perkins' motion to correct error challenged the trial court's valuation and division of assets between Perkins and Harding. A trial court has broad discretion to value assets in a dissolution action. Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888, 916 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), reh'g denied, trans. denied 831 N.E.2d 740 (Ind.2005). The court has not abused its discretion if its valuation is supported by evidence, or the reasonable inferences therefrom, in the record. Id.
Marital assets include property:
(1) owned by either spouse before the marriage;
(2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right:
(A) after the marriage; and
(B) before final separation of the parties; or
(3) acquired by their joint efforts.
Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(a). The court's goal is to divide the marital property in a just and equitable manner, Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(b), and we presume just and equitable division is synonymous with equal division between the parties. Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5.
However, if one party feels equal division is not just and equitable, that party may rebut the presumption of equal division by presenting evidence regarding 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:
(A) before the marriage; or
(B) 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 the family residence for such periods as the court considers 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) a final division of property; and
(B) a final determination of the property rights of the parties.
Division of the assets between divorcing parties is left to the trial court's discretion. Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029, 1031-32 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Even if the facts and reasonable inferences might allow us to reach a conclusion different than did the trial court, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court unless its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. We consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment. Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595, 599 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), reh'g denied. We may not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Akers, 729 N.E.2d at 1032.
A party challenging a property division must "overcome a strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute." Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Bartley, 712 N.E.2d 537, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)). We consider the court's disposition of marital property "as a whole, not item by item." Krasowski v. Krasowski, 691 N.E.2d 469, 473 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). When we review the division, our focus is on what the court did, not what the court could have done. Akers, 729 N.E.2d at 1032.
Perkins notes Harding testified he was not "interested in possession of marital residence and buses or any equity that may have accrued in them during their marriage." (Appellant's Br. at 5.) Because he so testified, Perkins asserts, the trial court erred by including those items in the marital pot. Perkins is correct that Harding testified he was not interested in taking any of the money from the house and the buses. Nevertheless, she is wrong about what his testimony means for the court's inclusion of items in the marital estate.
Indiana subscribes to the "one-pot" theory of marital possessions. See Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 58 (Ind.2002) (); Thompson, 811 N.E.2d at 912 (). Because the marital estate includes all the property, "whether owned by either spouse prior to marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her right after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts," Neffle v. Neffle, 483 N.E.2d 767, 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (citing Ind.Code § 31-1-11.5-11, now Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(a)), reh'g denied, trans. denied, the court's order dividing the marital estate should list all marital property. The court did not err when it listed the equity in the house and the buses as assets assigned to Perkins.
The court awarded $1,717.21 to each party from a "Savings Account." (App. at 3,4.) Perkins asserts: (Appellant's Br. at 6.) Perkins is correct. We find no evidence of such an account in the record; her Exhibit 2 contains a suggestion the court should award each party "$1,717.21" to equally divide the marital increases in the checking and money market accounts. (App. at 90.) Because the court equally divided the checking and money market accounts, its inclusion of Perkins' suggested division as another account was erroneous. Nevertheless, as the court awarded the same amount to each party, the error was harmless. We instruct the court to delete that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Henderson
... ... " Galloway v. Galloway , 855 N.E.2d 302, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Perkins v. Harding , 836 N.E.2d 295, 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) ). "A valuation submitted by one of the parties is competent evidence of the value of property ... ...
-
Priore v. Priore
... ... Perkins v. Harding, 836 N.E.2d 295, 299 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). We consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and we do not reweigh the evidence or ... ...
-
Yoldash v. Yoldash
... ... Perkins v. Harding, 836 N.E.2d 295, 299 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). We do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, and we consider only the ... ...
-
Johnson v. Johnson
... ... Perkins v. Harding, 836 N.E.2d 295, 299 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). In determining the propriety of a martial property division, our focus is on what the court did, ... ...