Alisa K. Wright v. A. Lance Wright (mem. dec.)
06A01-1701-DR-52
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Alisa and A. Lance Wright married in 1987; no children. Lance filed for dissolution in August 2012; trial occurred in September 2016.
- Wife founded BioC in 2005 (majority owner); both spouses invested in BioC and related real‑estate entity GOT; Wife contributed a larger share of pre‑BioC marital wealth but suffered losses during BioC startup.
- At separation (2012) the parties together owned a controlling ~80.3% interest in BioC; the court valued the marital interest in BioC at about $1.505 million (Wife’s ~74.9% ≈ $1.403M; Husband’s ~5.4% ≈ $101,604).
- The trial court entered a final decree dividing the marital estate roughly 50/50, set an equalization payment (Wife to Husband) of $253,003.96, awarded Husband $120,000 of attorney’s fees to be paid by Wife, and later granted Husband a security interest in Wife’s BioC equity pending payment.
- Wife appealed, arguing: (1) the equal division was erroneous (illiquidity, her greater contributions, operating agreement limits, dissipation by Husband); (2) the security interest in BioC was improper; and (3) the $120,000 attorney‑fee award to Husband was improper (mischaracterized/attributed income, improper tax deduction, and illiquidity concerns).
Issues
| Issue | Wright (Wife) Argues | Wright (Husband) Argues | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Division of marital property — equal split | Wife says she rebutted the presumption of equal division: her BioC interest is illiquid, she contributed more to BioC and marital wealth, and future earnings are tied to BioC | Court may value contributions but must consider losses, foreseeability, liquidity awards, and evidence; Husband relied on valuations and overall equitable factors | Affirmed: trial court did not clearly err; equal division justified given valuation, cash awarded to Wife, and findings that contributions/ losses largely netted out |
| 2) Security interest in Wife’s BioC equity | Wife contends granting security interest (continued entanglement) is disfavored and unsupported by findings | Husband sought security to secure equalization payment; trial court has broad discretion under I.C. §31‑15‑7‑8 | Affirmed: security interest permissible; court acted within discretion and followed controlling authority permitting security when not preserving joint control |
| 3) Award of $120,000 of Husband’s attorney fees to be paid by Wife | Wife argues court mischaracterized her income (relied on pass‑through/undistributed/phantom income from K‑1s), considered improper tax deduction, and ignored illiquidity | Husband points to Wife’s tax returns/K‑1s showing large self‑employment earnings and to parties’ relative ability to employ counsel; court relied on multiple factors | Affirmed: findings supported by tax returns and other evidence; trial court reasonably exercised discretion in awarding fees; Wife failed to present alternative accounting evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Trabucco v. Trabucco, 944 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for bench findings and two‑tier review explained)
- Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (security interests in closely held business post‑divorce permissible if they don’t preserve joint ownership/control)
- Masters v. Masters, 43 N.E.3d 570 (Ind. 2015) (factors and discretion for awarding attorney’s fees in dissolution actions)
- Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court may order payment of reasonable attorney’s fees; relevant factors)
- Cowart v. White, 711 N.E.2d 523 (Ind. 1999) (resources and earning ability as relevant considerations in fee awards)