Beth A. Ahls v. Carleton E. Ahls
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 67
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Beth and Carleton Ahls married in 1993, filed for dissolution in 2013; their child was emancipated by the time of trial.
- Marital assets included Husband’s three vested retirement plans: Thrift Savings Plan ($311,208.01), Civil Service Pension ($289,817), and Military Pension ($265,578).
- Parties agreed the marital portion (coverture fraction) was 62% for the Thrift and Civil Service Pension (Husband had ten years of accrual pre-marriage) and 36% for the Military Pension.
- The trial court adopted Husband’s expert valuations, ordered a 50/50 division of marital property, and awarded Wife 15.5% of Thrift and Civil Service and 9% of the Military Pension; it ordered an equalization payment by Husband of $52,168.45.
- The trial court’s final order was silent on survivor benefits; it denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees and ordered each party to pay their own fees.
- On appeal, the court found the trial court misapplied the coverture fraction (undercalculated Wife’s share), reversed and remanded for recalculation, and affirmed the trial court on survivor benefits (waived) and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper division of Husband’s retirement accounts (application of coverture fraction) | Trial court miscalculated Wife’s share; she should receive one-half of the marital portion of each account (31%, 31%, and 18% → 31%/2 etc. actually means she should receive 31% of each where 31% already reflects half of 62%) | Trial court’s adopted figures (awarding Wife 15.5%, 15.5%, and 9%) were correct as entered | Reversed: trial court erred by halving the marital portion again; remanded to apply coverture fraction correctly and adjust equalization as necessary |
| Survivor benefits under Husband’s retirement plans | Wife requested survivor benefits given Husband’s alleged instability and unemployability | Husband opposed; trial court made no findings and declined to award benefits | Waived on appeal: Wife failed to develop legal argument or cite authority, so issue is not reviewed |
| Award of attorney’s fees to Wife | Wife sought contribution from Husband based on alleged dissipation and unequal ability to pay | Husband argued resources are comparable; trial court found equal division just and reasonable and denied fees | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—parties’ resources were similar and Wife failed to prove improper conduct or dissipation that would justify fees |
| Equalization adjustment tied to retirement recalculation | Wife argued equalization must change if retirement shares are recalculated | Husband relied on trial court’s existing equalization figure | Remanded: recalculation of retirement shares may require revisiting the $52,168.45 equalization judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (one-pot theory; include all marital assets when valuing estate for division)
- In re Marriage of Sutton, 16 N.E.3d 481 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standards of review where trial court issues findings and conclusions)
- Hurt v. Hurt, 920 N.E.2d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (clearly erroneous standard and when judgment is clearly erroneous for misapplication of law)
- In re Marriage of Fisher, 24 N.E.3d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (description and use of coverture fraction for dividing retirement benefits)
- Hardin v. Hardin, 964 N.E.2d 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (coverture fraction methodology explained)
- Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard and factors for awarding attorney’s fees in dissolution)
- Fackler v. Powell, 923 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court’s broad discretion in attorney fee awards)
- Hartley v. Hartley, 862 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate waiver where appellant fails to develop argument or cite authority)
- Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (definition and factors for finding dissipation of marital assets)