ILNews

Court failed to include all assets in marital pot

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For the second time in the same case, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's division of assets in a marital dissolution because the trial court excluded from the marital pot the property the parties brought into marriage.

In Lori (Faust) Montgomery v. Dennis Faust, No. 85A04-091-CV-32, Lori Montgomery appealed the trial court's ruling on remand that excluded land and a car owned by Dennis Faust from the marital pot. The trial court excluded the same property in its original ruling on the dissolution, but the Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to put all the marital property into the marital pot before determining the appropriate division.

On remand, the trial court issued its order which stated the land and the car are included in the marital pot, but it still ruled the same way it had in the first order. The court returned the land and car to Faust, ordered Montgomery to pay Faust $5,451 as an equalization payment and reaffirmed its original order. It noted the order resulted in an unequal distribution of all the marital assets, but it was appropriate because of the short duration of the marriage.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Montgomery's argument that simply setting off all property owned by each party prior to the marriage in such a "perfunctory manner" constituted the type of systematic exclusion of assets the appellate court held to be an abuse of discretion in its original opinion.

"Purporting to put all marital assets into the marital pot but then removing certain assets before dividing the rest is equivalent to excluding those assets from the pot in the first place," wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

Knowing the numerical split of the entire estate may alter the trial court's view of the appropriateness of its division and having the trial court determine the total value of the marital estate helps appellate courts when reviewing the division.

Also, by failing to include all the marital assets in the marital pot, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider all of the factors listed in Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-5. The trial court shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable, and the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that an equal division wouldn't be just and reasonable, wrote Judge Riley. The Court of Appeals was unable to infer from the trial court's order that it considered all the statutory factors.

"There is nothing in either order to suggest that the trial court considered the present economic circumstances of each spouse, the future earnings ability of each spouse, or the conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property," she wrote.

Instead of remanding the case again for further proceedings, the Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to eliminate the equalization payment from Montgomery to Faust from its dissolution decree.

The appellate court also affirmed the trial court denial of attorney fees in favor of Montgomery.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT