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. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT