ILNews

Court upholds $4.7 million judgment in divorce case, orders hearing on stock interests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a divorce decree complicated by the husband’s ownership and interest in several construction and development companies, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed he must pay his wife more than $4.7 million as an equalization payment, plus any interest accruing after 90 days.

Jeff and Christina Crider were married for 27 years before Christina Crider filed for divorce in 2009. She was mostly a stay-at-home mom during the marriage whereas Jeff Crider is involved in a large number of business entities with his father, Robert, and his brother, Steve.

During the divorce proceedings, Jeff Crider was not very forthcoming with his annual income, but the trial court imputed he earned nearly $920,000 a year, so he should pay more than $1,200 a week in child support.

The case is complicated by “loans” either Jeff Crider made to the companies or his father made to Jeff Crider, money that was never paid back; and disputes over valuation of land and equipment owned by the companies.

Ultimately, Monroe Circuit Special Judge Frank Nardi found Jeff Crider’s business and real estate interests in 2009 totaled more than $11 million and evenly split the marital estate. Because Christina Crider received few liquid assets, the judge required Jeff Crider to make an equalization payment to her of $4,752,066. It would bear statutory interest unless paid in full within 90 days. To secure payment of the judgment, Nardi gave Christina Crider a security lien on all of her husband’s shares and ownership in the businesses. If the judgment isn’t paid in full within 180 days of the final judgment, then she retains ownership and control of the shares until the judgment is fully paid.

In a 57-page decision authored by Judge Michael Barnes, the COA found no error in granting Christina Crider security interests in Jeff Criders’ stock and membership interest, but it ruled Nardi erred in granting her automatic vested “ownership and control” in them upon Jeff Crider’s failure to pay the equalization judgment within 180 days.

The judges also affirmed the decision to delay reduction of Jeff Crider’s child support obligation for 90 days from $1,200 a week to $308 after Christina Crider receives the equalization payment. They reversed Nardi’s decision to require Jeff Crider to pay the $1,257 per week in child support because the equalization payment had not been made that was entered after an appeal was filed in this case. Jeff Crider’s child support obligation remains at $308, the COA held.

The appellate court also remanded for the trial court to enter amended garnishment, attachment and child support income withholding orders that comply with Indiana Code 24-4.5-5-105. The judges affirmed in all other respects.

The case is Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Crider, 53A05-1307-DR-358, 53A04-1401-DR-26.

 

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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT