ILNews

Judges order more proceedings in property distribution after divorce

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Citing inconsistencies and lack of information, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered more proceedings to determine issues of spousal maintenance and distribution of the marital estate in a divorce case.

Frank and Karen Ozug agreed to binding arbitration regarding Karen Ozug’s petition for dissolution of marriage. Karen Ozug sought a deviation from the statutory presumption of an equal distribution of personal property because she had inherited nearly $195,000 from her family 10 years earlier. She tried to stash away this money, which had been in various joint accounts in both parties’ names, upon separation of the parties. She also sought spousal maintenance due to alleged health issues, but there was no credible evidence presented to support her allegations of these conditions.

Frank Ozug was ordered to pay spousal maintenance in the form of continuing health coverage for his ex-wife for one year from the date of the decree. He was ordered solely responsible for the $47,000 in credit card debt and awarded funds in several accounts and 50 percent of his pensions, except for his pension in place before marriage. Karen Ozug received funds from several other accounts as well as two of the three cars.

“We find the findings and conclusions in this case to be facially inconsistent and insufficient to support the property distribution in the present case,” Judge James Kirsch wrote in In Re the Marriage of: Frank J. Ozug v. Karen S. Ozug, 45A03-1307-DR-250. Under the spousal maintenance section, the findings say the arbitrator found no credible evidence to support Karen Ozug’s allegations, yet the health care coverage was awarded as a form of spousal maintenance. In addition, her request for a deviation of the presumptive equal division of personal property was denied without explanation, but a clarification by the arbitrator indicates the distribution of property resulted in 61 percent to Karen Ozug and 39 percent to Frank Ozug.

“We, therefore, vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for proceedings to remedy these problems and determine the issues of spousal maintenance and distribution of the marital estate,” he wrote.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT