ILNews

Judges order modification of dissolution decree

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court abused its discretion when it didn’t consider a $160,000 change in value of a property when calculating marital assets and distributing marital property.

In Patrick M. McGrath v. Linda S. McGrath, No. 46A03-1008-DR-429, Patrick McGrath challenged the LaPorte Superior Court’s use of a 2005 valuation of property he and his wife Linda purchased on Shawmut Avenue in Michigan City in 1994. When Linda filed for divorce in 2005, the Shawmut property was appraised at $389,000. In November 2009, it was appraised at $229,000.

The trial court stated at the final hearing on the petition for dissolution that it intended to divide the marital property equally. The court entered the decree using the 2005 appraisal amount when dividing the martial property. The court ordered Linda to transfer her interest in the real estate to Patrick.

Patrick filed a motion to correct error, claiming the court should have used the 2009 appraisal value and by not doing so, the court deviated from an equal division of marital assets and Linda would actually receive more than 62 percent of the marital pot.

A trial court may select any date between the filing of the petition for dissolution and the date of the final hearing for purposes of choosing a date upon which to value marital assets, Judge Elaine Brown wrote. She also noted that the trial court is required to divide the marital estate in a just and reasonable manner, with an equal division presumed to be just and reasonable.

The appellate judges found the $160,000 decline in the value of the property represented a significant departure from an equal division of the marital estate. The trial court’s division didn’t account for the decreased value during the pendency of the proceedings and ultimately rendered an unequal division of marital property, which was contrary to the court’s stated intent, wrote Judge Brown.

Judge Ezra Friedlander concurred in result in a separate opinion, stressing that his vote was based upon the internal inconsistency in the trial court’s division of property. He noted that the trial court has discretion to choose the valuation date and discretion to divide an estate evenly or not, depending on particular circumstances.

“It may not, however purport to achieve a current equal division by assigning a value to an asset that does not comport with current reality,” he wrote.

The Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to enter a modified decree of dissolution or an amendment to the decree reflecting an equal property division of the martial estate considering the change in value of the Shawmut property.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT