Adrianne R. Helton v. Timothy Joseph Helton (mem. dec,), 60A05-1609-DR-2202

Adrianne R. Helton (Wife) and Timothy J. Helton (Husband) married in 2002 and built a house in 2007 on land they believed Husband's father owned.
The couple executed a land contract with Husband's father for the property and constructed the residence.
In 2010 they learned the land was actually owned by a neighbor; they stopped payments and did not acquire legal title or adverse possession.
Husband continued to live in the house through separation, paying taxes, insurance, and improvements.
Husband filed for dissolution in January 2014; the trial court dissolved the marriage and, in its 2016 property-division order, found no vested ownership interest in the house and excluded it from the marital estate.
Wife appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not accounting for Husband’s continued use and occupation of the house in property division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by excluding the house from the marital estate	Wife: Court should have considered value of Husband’s continued use/occupation when dividing assets	Husband/Trial Court: Neither party had a vested ownership interest; no basis to include the house or value of occupation	Court: Affirmed—house excluded as no vested interest; Wife waived the use/occupation argument by not raising it at trial and presenting no evidence of its value

Vadas v. Vadas, 762 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. 2002) (only vested property at time of dissolution may be divided)
Mullins v. Matlock, 638 N.E.2d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (supports vested-interest rule for marital property)
Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (standard for reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law)
Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., 981 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 2013) (issues not raised in trial court are forfeited on appeal)
Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 2000) (a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal)