ILNews

IBA: What Every Woman Should Know to Protect Herself in the Event of Divorce

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Amy Carson, Laura Gaskill, Robin Kelly and Gloria K. Mitchell, all of Mitchell & Associates

Advising clients contemplating divorce varies with the style of the attorney. Even so, there are fundamental issues every woman considering or beginning the divorce process should know to protect herself financially. 

Divorce Fundamentals. Indiana is a no-fault state, meaning that the reason for the divorce is not relevant to the court. The Petition for Dissolution of Marriage generally states that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and it should be dissolved. After the petition if filed, there is a required 60-day cooling off period before the divorce can be final.

Date of filing. The date a Petition for Dissolution is filed is the date a court looks at to determine what is in the marital estate, both assets and debts. Any assets acquired/earned or debts incurred after the date of filing will generally not go into the marital estate and belong solely to the party who accrued the asset or incurred the debt.

Division of Assets. Indiana follows the “one pot theory,” meaning that any assets or debts brought into the marriage, or acquired during the marriage, are included in the marital estate, unless there is a prenuptial agreement indicating otherwise. The presumption is that the marital estate is divided 50/50; however, either party can attempt to persuade the judge that 50/50 would not be fair.

Spousal Maintenance. Indiana is not an alimony state, which means a court cannot order that alimony be paid unless the parties both agree that alimony should be paid; since the payment of alimony may be financially advantageous to both parties, this kind of agreement is uncommon. Spousal maintenance, however, can be ordered by the court. There are three instances when a court can order that one spouse pay maintenance to the other. These include the following: when a spouse is the custodian of a child with physical/mental incapacity such that it impairs that spouse’s ability to work; or if a spouse is physically/mentally incapacitated such that he/she cannot work; or if a spouse is in need of rehabilitative maintenance because he/she needs training or schooling in order to re-enter the workforce.•

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT