Judges order modification of dissolution decree

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court abused its discretion when it didn’t consider a $160,000 change in value of a property when calculating marital assets and distributing marital property.

In Patrick M. McGrath v. Linda S. McGrath, No. 46A03-1008-DR-429, Patrick McGrath challenged the LaPorte Superior Court’s use of a 2005 valuation of property he and his wife Linda purchased on Shawmut Avenue in Michigan City in 1994. When Linda filed for divorce in 2005, the Shawmut property was appraised at $389,000. In November 2009, it was appraised at $229,000.

The trial court stated at the final hearing on the petition for dissolution that it intended to divide the marital property equally. The court entered the decree using the 2005 appraisal amount when dividing the martial property. The court ordered Linda to transfer her interest in the real estate to Patrick.

Patrick filed a motion to correct error, claiming the court should have used the 2009 appraisal value and by not doing so, the court deviated from an equal division of marital assets and Linda would actually receive more than 62 percent of the marital pot.

A trial court may select any date between the filing of the petition for dissolution and the date of the final hearing for purposes of choosing a date upon which to value marital assets, Judge Elaine Brown wrote. She also noted that the trial court is required to divide the marital estate in a just and reasonable manner, with an equal division presumed to be just and reasonable.

The appellate judges found the $160,000 decline in the value of the property represented a significant departure from an equal division of the marital estate. The trial court’s division didn’t account for the decreased value during the pendency of the proceedings and ultimately rendered an unequal division of marital property, which was contrary to the court’s stated intent, wrote Judge Brown.

Judge Ezra Friedlander concurred in result in a separate opinion, stressing that his vote was based upon the internal inconsistency in the trial court’s division of property. He noted that the trial court has discretion to choose the valuation date and discretion to divide an estate evenly or not, depending on particular circumstances.

“It may not, however purport to achieve a current equal division by assigning a value to an asset that does not comport with current reality,” he wrote.

The Court of Appeals remanded with instructions to enter a modified decree of dissolution or an amendment to the decree reflecting an equal property division of the martial estate considering the change in value of the Shawmut property.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?