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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT