ILNews

Court rules on inclusion of inherited property in marital estates

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruled today on a case of distributing inherited property during dissolution of a marriage, stating property inherited by either party should be included in the marital estate.

In Sharren M. (Garrity) Grathwohl v. Steven T. Garrity, http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07300703mpb.pdf the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for the purpose of requiring the trial court to include both parties' inherited property in their marital estate, to value the properties, and to issue a new order to redistribute the marital assets accordingly.

In 2003, Sharren Grathwohl and Steven Garrity, who were married at the time, both inherited properties from their mothers. Grathwohl owned her property in Michigan as a joint tenant "with full rights as a survivor," with her son from a previous marriage owning the other half. In 2006, Garrity filed for divorce and testified that both properties should be included in the marital estate, but set off separately to each party. Grathwohl argued her inherited property should not be included because of the joint tenancy with her son. The trial court excluded both properties when dissolving the marriage and dividing the marital estate. The court calculated the net worth of the marital estate at $277,537 and awarded approximately 49 percent to Grathwohl and 51 percent to Garrity.

Grathwohl appealed the ruling, stating the trial court erred in not including Garrity's property in the marital estate and that Garrity had frivolously dissipated marital property prior to the divorce.

The Court of Appeals, citing Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(a), states it has been repeatedly held that the statute requires inclusion of all property owned in the marital estate, including inherited properties. It found the trial court erred in excluding the properties of Garrity and Grathwohl. Even though Grathwohl's property includes joint tenancy, the court stated she had the right to enjoy the use of the Michigan property, sell it, or mortgage her interest in it, thus it is sufficient enough to render the property in the marital pot as well.

The trial court didn't include in its decision why it excluded the inherited property in the marital estate, beyond stating it was inherited property. The Court of Appeals is unable to determine the actual total value of the marital estate or the percentages of the estate Garrity and Grathwohl received because the trial court did not assign values to the parties' interests in the inherited properties, despite evidence being presented to support that point.

The Court of Appeals remands to the trial court to include the parties' inherited property interests in the marital estate, to valuate those interests, and to recalculate the division of marital assets accordingly. A footnote to this point states the court cannot address Grathwohl's claim she was entitled to a larger percentage of the estate because it doesn't know what percentage of the marital estate she actually received.

Grathwohl also claimed in her appeal that Garrity frivolously dissipated marital assets prior to the divorce when he purchased a motorcycle, bought Conseco stock that eventually became worthless, and spent money remodeling and repairing the property he inherited from his mother. The court found that Garrity did not dissipate marital assets frivolously because Grathwohl had received half of the profits from the sale of the motorcycle; Garrity couldn't have known that the Conseco stock would become worthless; and remodeling of a home that is considered a marital asset is not wasteful.
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. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT