ILNews

COA: Home isn't allowed in marital estate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a trial court believed a wife's testimony that her in-laws' purposefully kept her from receiving any money from the sale of the marital residence in the event of a divorce, the lower court erred by including the residence in the marital estate, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals. The home was titled in the name of the in-laws and they weren't joined as nonparties to the dissolution proceedings.

Greta Nicevski testified during the dissolution proceedings that she believed her husband, Krstin, and his parents had titled the Nicevskis' home in the parents' names solely to deprive her of half the property's value if they were to divorce. After the Nicevskis married, Krstin's parents paid for the lot, construction, and title insurance for the home; the Nicevskis paid the parents rent to live in the house.

The trial court accepted Greta's testimony that she and her husband paid $80,000 toward the house, even though she didn't have evidence or bank statements to support her testimony. The lower court also ruled the house belongs to Krstin and that he must pay her $40,000.

In Krstin Nicevski v. Greta Nicevski, No. 02A04-0904-CV-188, the Court of Appeals relied on In re Marriage of Dall, 681 N.E.2d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), to reverse the trial court. In Dall, the wife's father purchased the lot, supplied most of the lumber for the home, paid the contractors and for the building materials, but the Dalls and the wife's parents all helped to build the home. The home was titled in the parents' name when the Dalls divorced. The trial court in that case held that an equitable interest in real property titled in a third-party's name, although claimed by one of the divorcing parties, shouldn't be included in the marital estate.

The Dall court also ruled that unless a nonparty is joined, the dissolution court is powerless to adjudicate with certainty the extent of the marital property interest in the real estate.

In the instant case, Krstin's parents were not joined as nonparties pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(7).

"We fully acknowledge that the trial court assessed witness credibility and chose to credit Greta's testimony over Krstin's, and we do not second-guess that decision," wrote Chief Judge John Baker. "Unfortunately, pursuant to Dall, the trial court simply did not have the power to include the residence in the marital estate."

The appellate court also rejected Greta's argument that Krstin waived any argument because he didn't object to her failure to join his parents at trial or seek to join them himself. The judges agreed with the Dall court that reliance on the waiver doctrine doesn't resolve this case, and that even though Krstin included a valuation of the residence at trial, he isn't precluded from arguing that the residence shouldn't have been included in the marital estate, wrote the chief judge.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT