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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT