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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT