ILNews

Court rules on inclusion of inherited property in marital estates

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruled today on a case of distributing inherited property during dissolution of a marriage, stating property inherited by either party should be included in the marital estate.

In Sharren M. (Garrity) Grathwohl v. Steven T. Garrity, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07300703mpb.pdf the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for the purpose of requiring the trial court to include both parties' inherited property in their marital estate, to value the properties, and to issue a new order to redistribute the marital assets accordingly.

In 2003, Sharren Grathwohl and Steven Garrity, who were married at the time, both inherited properties from their mothers. Grathwohl owned her property in Michigan as a joint tenant "with full rights as a survivor," with her son from a previous marriage owning the other half. In 2006, Garrity filed for divorce and testified that both properties should be included in the marital estate, but set off separately to each party. Grathwohl argued her inherited property should not be included because of the joint tenancy with her son. The trial court excluded both properties when dissolving the marriage and dividing the marital estate. The court calculated the net worth of the marital estate at $277,537 and awarded approximately 49 percent to Grathwohl and 51 percent to Garrity.

Grathwohl appealed the ruling, stating the trial court erred in not including Garrity's property in the marital estate and that Garrity had frivolously dissipated marital property prior to the divorce.

The Court of Appeals, citing Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(a), states it has been repeatedly held that the statute requires inclusion of all property owned in the marital estate, including inherited properties. It found the trial court erred in excluding the properties of Garrity and Grathwohl. Even though Grathwohl's property includes joint tenancy, the court stated she had the right to enjoy the use of the Michigan property, sell it, or mortgage her interest in it, thus it is sufficient enough to render the property in the marital pot as well.

The trial court didn't include in its decision why it excluded the inherited property in the marital estate, beyond stating it was inherited property. The Court of Appeals is unable to determine the actual total value of the marital estate or the percentages of the estate Garrity and Grathwohl received because the trial court did not assign values to the parties' interests in the inherited properties, despite evidence being presented to support that point.

The Court of Appeals remands to the trial court to include the parties' inherited property interests in the marital estate, to valuate those interests, and to recalculate the division of marital assets accordingly. A footnote to this point states the court cannot address Grathwohl's claim she was entitled to a larger percentage of the estate because it doesn't know what percentage of the marital estate she actually received.

Grathwohl also claimed in her appeal that Garrity frivolously dissipated marital assets prior to the divorce when he purchased a motorcycle, bought Conseco stock that eventually became worthless, and spent money remodeling and repairing the property he inherited from his mother. The court found that Garrity did not dissipate marital assets frivolously because Grathwohl had received half of the profits from the sale of the motorcycle; Garrity couldn't have known that the Conseco stock would become worthless; and remodeling of a home that is considered a marital asset is not wasteful.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT