ILNews

Judges find no error in division of marital assets

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the equal division of marital assets of a divorcing LaPorte County couple but found the trial court erred in its calculation of how much the ex-husband owes in child support.

Gwen Morgal-Henrich and David Henrich married in 2000 and divorced in 2011. When they married, Henrich adopted Morgal-Henrich’s minor son. They paid $105,000 as down payment on a $230,000 home, with that money coming from the sale of Morgal-Henrich’s home and money from her father. She also had life insurance polices that predated their marriage.

When they divorced, both were out of work and had filed for bankruptcy in 2007. The trial court didn’t deviate from the presumptive equal division of marital assets dividing the couple’s property. The trial court ordered Henrich to pay $6,240 in child support for their son, who was emancipated as of the date of the final hearing in 2011. The judge calculated that Henrich’s weekly gross income was $390 based on his unemployment benefits and that he could pay $65 a week in child support from the date of the filing to the date of the final hearing.

Morgal-Henrich appealed, claiming she brought significant assts into the marriage, which should have created an unequal division in her favor. The judges cited Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 59 (Ind. 2002), in upholding the lower court on this issue. The trial court was not required to alter its equal division of the marital property to reflect Morgal-Henrich’s premarital assets, wrote Judge Michael Barnes in Gwen E. Morgal-Henrich v. David Brian Henrich, 46A05-1111-DR-645.

Regarding the child support order, however, the appellate court reversed and ordered a recalculation. The trial court should look at the weekly earnings of Henrich for the applicable time period of August 2009 to June 2011 and use an income averaging calculation to determine his weekly gross income due to his fluctuating income. Henrich does seasonal work and his income varied during the marriage depending on the availability of work.

 

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