ILNews

Judges disagree on if remand is necessary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a trial court's grant of an ex-wife's petition for additional relief for funds, finding the trial court didn't hear evidence on certain "critical" factors. The judges on appeal didn't agree as to whether the case should be remanded.

In Harold E. Bean Jr. v. Carol A. Bean, No. 49A05-0807-CV-390, the appellate court considered whether the trial court properly adjudicated certain of Harold Bean's dissolution debts to be nondischargeable for the purpose of the federal bankruptcy proceedings; whether the trial court erred in ordering him to pay half of the Beans' children's college expenses; and whether it erred in ordering Harold to pay Carol Bean's attorney fees.

As part of the couple's settlement agreement, Harold was to assume and pay the second mortgage on the marital home, and they were to split equally the cost of educational expenses and file joint tax income returns for 1986 and 1987.

Harold filed bankruptcy after the dissolution; Carol was forced to refinance the home to pay off the second mortgage and tax liability because he failed to pay their joint tax liability.

When considering whether Harold's dissolution debts, such as the second mortgage and tax liability were nondischargeable, the Indiana Court of Appeals noted important evidence on certain factors was missing. The record didn't contain evidence of their incomes and earning potentials when they entered the settlement agreement, and neither party presented evidence about the actual need for support or the adequacy of support without the award, wrote Judge Elaine Brown.

Without a record of the parties' financial situations when they entered into the settlement agreement, the Court of Appeals was unable to tell whether the second mortgage assigned to Harold was intended to be in nature of maintenance or support or part of a property division, which would determine whether the debts were nondischargeable. The appellate court reversed the award reimbursing Carol for her payment of the second mortgage and payment of the tax liability.

The Court of Appeals also reversed the order Harold had to pay half of his children's college expenses. The parties' settlement agreement didn't specify Harold would be responsible for their college fees and expenses, and only mentioned one child's pre-school and kindergarten expenses. In addition, Carol never filed a petition to modify the agreement, wrote the judge. The trial court also erred in awarding Carol attorney fees.

The majority remanded the case for a hearing consistent with the opinion, but Judge Margret Robb dissented to ordering a remand. While she concurred with reversing the orders against Harold, she believed Carol wasn't entitled to a "second bite of the apple" to prove her case. The trial court had no evidence regarding several of the factors for determining dischargeability, and the factors in Carol's favor aren't sufficient to override the factors for which the evidence doesn't support her position and for which there is no evidence at all, wrote Judge Robb.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT