ILNews

Ex-wife ordered to return money husband stole from nonprofit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman whose ex-husband committed suicide after his scheme to steal money from his employer unraveled must pay back to the company money she received from her husband during and after their marriage, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

Connie Landers challenged the Tippecanoe Superior Court’s ruling in favor of Wabash Center Inc., a not-for-profit that assists children with developmental disabilities and provides assistance for adults related to living and employment, that she must pay more than $1 million to the agency because her ex-husband stole more than $4 million from his employer.

Stephen McAninch worked for Wabash managing the nonprofit’s finances from 1986 until his death in 2009, during and after his marriage to Landers. He set up a fake company to divert money to and was able to conceal his actions because of his job duties. It wasn’t until an outside auditor in 2009 sought to confirm that the fictitious company actually completed work that Wabash paid for that the scheme was discovered. McAninch killed himself in October 2009, and a forensic accountant discovered that Landers had received some of the stolen money.

She argued that Wabash’s lawsuit, filed in April 2011 for unjust enrichment and other wrongs, should be barred by the statute of limitations because the agency didn’t act with reasonable diligence to discover the theft within the six-year statute of limitations. But there’s sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Wabash acted with ordinary diligence, Senior Judge Randall T. Shepard wrote. McAninch kept false records and invoices, locked in a drawer in his office, and there was no reason to believe McAninch had created false minutes from board meetings. Previous outside audits didn’t raise any red flags.

There’s also evidence that Landers received stolen money. She estimated her ex-husband made around $150,000 a year, which included his “moonlighting” as she called it, which is above the salary McAninch earned. He also agreed in their divorce to pay her above the monthly amount required under the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, gave her $20,000 in the divorce, and paid for the home’s mortgage. Because he had also bought himself a boat, car and other items, he likely spent his own money on those items, meaning Landers received stolen money, the judges concluded in Connie S. Landers v. Wabash Center, Inc., 79A04-1204-CT-191.
 

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 was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT