Clarenda Love v. Bruce Love
10 N.E.3d 1005
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Long-term marriage (1979–2010); two adult children; separation date = petition for dissolution filed June 22, 2010.
- Clarenda earned a pharmacy degree during the marriage (Purdue), graduating 2005, licensed 2007; incurred $54,646.84 in student loan debt during that period.
- At separation Clarenda was a pharmacist earning about $106,000 (approx. $120,000 when including other income); Bruce earned about $52,000 (approx. $60,000 total).
- Marital assets included the Avon marital residence (awarded to Clarenda) and a Lafayette/West Lafayette rental property (awarded to Bruce); retirement accounts and vehicles also divided.
- Original trial court awarded Bruce ~67.4% and Clarenda ~32.6% of net marital estate; this court remanded for insufficient findings. On remand the trial court issued an Amended Order shifting half the student-loan burden and requiring an equalization payment, resulting in Bruce ~59.7% / Clarenda ~40.3%.
- Trial court treated Clarenda’s degree/license as nonmarital (not divisible) but treated student loans as marital liability and considered increased earning capacity when rebutting the presumptive equal division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clarenda) | Defendant's Argument (Bruce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing marital property unequally | The record did not rebut the presumption of equal division; court overemphasized post-degree income and student loans; Clarenda’s contributions (home management, rental administration) and lack of dissipation were not properly weighed | Court correctly considered statutory factors (including increased earning capacity from degree and student-loan liability) and provided justifications for an unequal division shifting half the student loan burden to Clarenda and ordering equalization | Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; Amended Order sufficiently addresses statutory factors and provides a rational basis for unequal split (Bruce 59.7%, Clarenda 40.3%) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Roberts, 670 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (degree cannot be marital property; student loans contracted during marriage remain marital liabilities; court may consider increased earning capacity)
- Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. 2002) (marital property division reviewed as whole under abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Eye v. Eye, 849 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court must consider statutory factors—though not required to state each explicitly—so appellate court can infer consideration)