Benny Harris v. Tonya Harris (n/k/a Keith)
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 593
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Benny and Tonya Harris divorced after a short marriage (married 2008; dissolution filed 2013); no children. Final hearing addressed property division.
- Trial court found a 50/50 division of the marital estate appropriate and awarded Tonya the marital residence, her vehicle, bank accounts, and her 401(k); Benny received his vehicles and 401(k).
- The trial court ordered Benny’s Railroad Retirement (Tier I and Tier II) to be divided equally and, to the extent Tier I could not be QDRO’d, ordered Benny to pay Tonya one-half when the account reached pay status.
- Benny appealed, arguing (1) Tier I benefits are not divisible under federal law and (2) the court’s property division did not effectuate an actual 50/50 split. Tonya sought appellate attorney fees.
- The record showed Benny failed to fully comply with discovery and offered little evidence of asset values; he conceded Tier II is divisible but consistently argued Tier I is not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could order Benny to pay Tonya half of his Tier I railroad retirement benefits when account reaches pay status | Benny: Tier I benefits are federally protected from assignment/anticipation and are not marital property under Hisquierdo and related precedent | Tonya: Ordering a future offset payment when benefits reach pay status avoids the anticipation problem and is permissible | Court: Reversed — Tier I benefits are not divisible; ordering a future payment for Tier I violates Hisquierdo and must be stricken |
| Whether the trial court effectuated a 50/50 division of the marital estate | Benny: The division resulted in Tonya receiving a disproportionate share (about 70%) once values are applied | Tonya: Division was appropriate; Benny invited or conceded many awards at hearing and provided little value evidence | Court: Affirmed — Benny failed to overcome strong presumption the trial court properly divided assets; invited-error and lack of evidence defeat his challenge |
| Whether Tonya is entitled to appellate attorney fees | Tonya: Appeal is in bad faith and merits fees under App. R. 66(E) | Benny: Appeal presents colorable issues (e.g., Tier I division) | Court: Denied — appeal not frivolous or in bad faith; no attorney fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1979) (Railroad Retirement Act anti-assignment and anti-anticipation provisions preclude treating Tier I benefits as marital property or offsetting them via lump-sum awards)
- Severs v. Severs, 837 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 2005) (federal anti-assignment principles applied to social security and analogous benefits; supports non-divisibility of certain federal benefits)
- Plisinski v. Plisinski, 700 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (trial court erred by treating Tier I railroad benefits as marital property)
- Hodowal v. Hodowal, 627 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (possible future retirement income is not marital property at time of separation)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (appellate courts look to substance over labels when trial court characterizes findings/conclusions)