[1] Raymond White (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's decree dissolving his marriage to Yvonne White (“Wife”). Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) excluding his son's student loans, on which he cosigned during the marriage, from the marital estate; (2) dividing the marital estate; and (3) offsetting some of his expenses by denying Wife's request for attorney's fees. Wife asks us to remand for a determination of whether an award of appellate attorney's fees is appropriate. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion only in excluding the student loans from the marital estate. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to (1) include the student loans in the marital estate and divide that liability accordingly, and (2) determine whether an award of appellate attorney's fees to Wife is appropriate.
Facts and Procedural History[2] Husband and Wife were married in 1978 and had two sons, Austin and Houston, who were adults at the time of the dissolution hearing. Wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage in September 2011. Later that month, the trial court entered a provisional order that, among other things, restrained Husband and Wife from having contact with each other and from “transferring, concealing, or otherwise disposing of any assets of the marriage” without prior consent or court order; awarded Wife “sole and exclusive use of the marital residence,” with Husband to be responsible for the mortgage; awarded Wife “sole and exclusive use” of a Cadillac, with Wife to be responsible “for all obligations thereon”; and reserved the issue of attorney fees for the final hearing. Appellant's App. at 19, 20. The trial court held the final hearing on December 18, 2013, and continued it to March 19, 2014. In the interim, each party filed a contempt motion against the other. Wife alleged that Husband had entered the marital residence in violation of a court order and also violated a no-contact order, and Husband alleged that Wife had removed property from the residence in violation of the provisional order.
[3] On June 26, 2014, the trial court entered a dissolution decree that reads in relevant part as follows:
(3) ASSETS & DEBTS
The parties largely agree on the division of assets and debts as well as the values to be assigned to the assets and the amounts owed on the debts. (see Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and Respondent's Exhibit C). The Court adopts and incorporates Attachment “A” into this decree. The Court awards the assets designated in “A” to the party reflected on the attachment. Likewise, the Court directs that each party shall be responsible for and hold the other harmless upon the debts assigned in “A”.
The Court finds that “[Husband's] profit sharing plan” ... is not an asset of the marriage because it was earned by [Husband] after the separation.
The Court removed any values assigned to household items for reasons set forth in paragraph 6 below.
The Court rejects [Husband's] argument that Austin's student loans should be considered in the division of the marital estate. Austin is primarily responsible for these loans and is current in the loan obligations. Therefore, the loans have not been considered.
The Court is directing that [Husband's] pension would be divided by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and therefore the value is not included in the equalization calculation.
(4) MARITAL RESIDENCE:
That [Husband] shall have sole and exclusive ownership of the marital residence ... and shall be responsible for and shall hold [Wife] harmless for all obligations associated with the marital residence.
[Husband] shall be obligated to refinance the first mortgage to remove [Wife's] name from the debt obligation.... The Court anticipates that the refinancing will be needed for the equalization payment and the Court anticipates that will all be accomplished within sixty (60) days of today's date.
(5) RETIREMENT/BENEFIT:
That [Wife] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of [Wife's] 401(k) with the value of $10,902.27.
That [Husband] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of [Husband's] General Motor[s] Profit Sharing Plan with the value of $2,629.81.
General Motor[s] Hourly Rate Employee's Pension Plan
[Wife] shall be awarded 50% of [Husband's] vested General Motor[s] Hourly Rate Employee's Pension Plan (“the Plan”) as of September 8th, 2011.
....
(6) PERSONAL PROPERTY:
The parties have largely divided their personal property so that each shall be the sole and exclusive owner of the items of personal property currently in their possession or under their control without claim of the other party except for the following contested items:
• Depression glass—[Wife] shall be the sole and exclusive owner of the depression glass with the exception that there are certain items of glass or flatware that came from [Husband's] family and those items should be given to [Husband].
• Corvette—[Wife] shall be the sole an[d] exclusive owner of [C]orvette at a value of $5,000....
• [Husband's] rings—That [Wife] shall provide [Husband] with his wedding ring and class ring if the same are in her possession....
[Husband] submitted a detailed property list. It is unclear what items he actually has or doesn't have and the values associated with these items. There are a number of items that went missing as the adult sons became intermingled in this dissolution. The Court has not included values of various household items given that the evidence was so ambiguous.
(7) OTHER DEBTS/ASSETS:
Other than the assets and debts specifically mentioned herein each party shall be sole and exclusive owner of the assets currently in their possession without claim of the other party. Similarly, each party shall be responsible for any debts that they have incurred solely in their name or since the separation....
(8) EQUALIZATION:
In order to equalize the distribution [Husband] shall pay [Wife] Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine Dollars and Sixty Four Cents ($79,489.64), all to be paid within sixty (60) days after which the unpaid balance shall be reduced to a judgment to accrue interest at the legal rate. The Court has varied slightly from an equal division based on the disparity of income. As such, the Court awards [Wife] Fifty Five Percent (55%) of the marital estate and [Husband] Forty Five Percent (45%) of the marital estate. The percentage calculation does not include [Husband's] pension which has been divided equally by way of QDRO in paragraph 5.
(9) ATTORNEY FEES: Each party shall be responsible for their [sic] own attorney fees. The Court would normally award attorney fees in this circumstance to [Wife]. The Court finds that [Husband] contributed to a number of provisional expenses that were [Wife's] responsibility and should be given some credit for contribution to these expenses. Rather than subtract those out from the overall equalization and entering an award of attorney fees, the Court determines that the same, or approximately the same, result is accomplished by simply not awarding attorney fees.
(10) CONTEMPT: The Court denies any request for a finding of contempt.
Id. at 66–70.
[4] The decree includes a memorandum that states in pertinent part, “Both parties, by their actions, contributed to length, expense, and divisiveness of this dissolution of marriage. Neither party acted in good faith with each other and neither was particularly candid with this Court.” Id. at 71. The aforementioned Attachment “A” lists certain assets and liabilities, such as the marital residence, vehicles, a personal injury settlement, bank accounts, home mortgage debt, Wife's student loan debt, and credit card debts, as well as their value. The value of “Household Furniture etc.” is listed as “In Kind.” Id. at 72. Husband's net worth is calculated at $179,519.17 and Wife's at $42,768.67, for a total net worth of $222,287.84. With the $79,489.64 equalization payment, Husband ended up with $100,029.53 and Wife with $122,258.31.
[5] Husband now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
[6] Husband challenges several aspects of the dissolution decree. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte. “Sua sponte findings control only as to the issues they cover, and a general judgment will control as to the issues upon which there are no findings. We will affirm a general judgment entered with findings if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.” Hurt v. Hurt, 920 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (citation omitted). We “shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A).
A decision is clearly erroneous if it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the dissolution court, or if a review of the record leaves this court with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In making this determination, we will not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, and we will only consider the evidence favorable to the judgment and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.
R.R.F. v. L.L.F., 956 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citation omitted). “Findings are clearly erroneous if there are no facts in the record to support them either directly or by inference, and a judgment is clearly erroneous if the wrong legal standard is applied to properly found facts.” Crider v. Crider, 26 N.E.3d 1045, 1047 (Ind.Ct.App.2015). “[W]e may look both to other findings and beyond the findings...
