ILNews

COA: Wife is entitled to maintenance, larger amount of marital estate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a trial court to divvy up a marital estate with more than 50 percent of it going to the wife because she rebutted the presumption of an equal division.

Daylene Coleman appealed the order dissolving her marriage to Scott Atchison, arguing the court abused its discretion when it denied her request for incapacity maintenance and in its division of the marital estate.

Coleman and Atchison were married for 10 years when Coleman filed for divorce in 2011. During the course of their marriage, she became disabled, stopped working, and began receiving Social Security disability payments. Atchison has worked throughout the marriage and has children from a previous relationship.

The trial court found that the presumption of an equal division of assets and liabilities between the parties has been rebutted based on evidence presented by Coleman. Wells Circuit Judge Kenton W. Kiracofe held that a division of property in favor of Coleman is warranted, but then ordered the marital property split 50/50.

The parties also stipulated that Coleman is incapacitated to the extent that her ability to support herself is materially affected, but Kiracofe declined to award her incapacity maintenance.

The Court of Appeals reversed the dissolution order in Daylene M. (Atchison) Coleman v. Scott A. Atchison, 90A02-1311-DR-921. The judges noted Kiracofe’s findings and conclusions on the maintenance award are inconsistent. He made findings based on Temple v. Temple, 164 Ind. App. 215, 328 N.E.2d 227 (1975), to explain why he did not award maintenance. But he also found that there are no extenuating circumstances “that directly relate to the criteria for awarding incapacity maintenance” and that Atchison should pay Coleman maintenance, quoting Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.e.2d 524 (Ind. 2001), without citation.

Kiracofe also expressly found Coleman rebutted the presumption of an equal division, but then divided the martial estate in half. The appeals court ordered on remand for the lower court to award her more than 50 percent of the marital estate and to either award Coleman incapacity maintenance or identify specific extenuating circumstances directly related to the statutory criteria for awarding such maintenance that would justify denying the award.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT