Amy L. Falatovics v. Imre L. Falatovics
15 N.E.3d 108
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Amy L. Falatovics (Wife) and Imre L. Falatovics (Husband) were married in 1989; Wife filed for dissolution in 2013.
- In 2005 Husband and his brother received two LaPorte County parcels by quitclaim deed as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, subject to life estates in Husband’s parents; father later died, mother retained life estate.
- The parties agreed Husband’s vested remainder/interest values: Parcel 1 $76,700 and Parcel 2 $30,000 (total $106,700).
- The trial court excluded Husband’s interests in the two parcels from the marital estate, reasoning Husband would not possess the land during his mother’s life and had not invested in it.
- The trial court divided the remaining marital estate equally; Wife appealed the exclusion of Husband’s interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husband’s remainder interests in the two parcels must be included in the marital estate | Wife: Husband’s remainder interests are vested, have present pecuniary value, and thus must be placed in the marital pot | Husband (trial court reasoning): No present possessory interest and unlikely to possess while mother holds life estate; therefore not a marital asset | Court: Reversed — Husband’s remainder interests are vested joint-tenancy interests with present pecuniary value and must be included in the marital estate |
| Whether court may award the parcels wholly to Husband without first including them in the marital pot | Wife: Trial court erred by excluding the assets before division | Trial court: Excluded assets as not marital; then awarded Husband any future rights | Court: Trial court must include the assets in the marital pot first; it may later award assets to one spouse but only after valuation and proper consideration |
| Whether an equal division should be presumed given the newly included assets | Wife: She asked for an equal split of Husband’s interest | Trial court: Previously divided based on incomplete marital estate | Court: Remanded — inclusion of the $106,700 may affect what is just and reasonable; trial court to redistribute as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Moyars v. Moyars, 717 N.E.2d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (vested remainder subject to life estate is a present pecuniary asset and includable in property division)
- Loeb v. Loeb, 301 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1973) (remainder interest lacking present pecuniary value was excluded from marital property)
- Wanner v. Hutchcroft, 888 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Indiana’s one-pot theory prohibits excluding vested interests from division)
- Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court must include an asset in the marital pot before awarding it solely to one spouse)