Clarenda Love v. Bruce Love (mem. dec.), 32A01-1612-DR-2918

Bruce Love petitioned for dissolution; initial 2012 decree awarded an unequal division favoring Husband and awarded Wife proceeds of an insurance check. Wife appealed and the Court of Appeals remanded for an equal distribution.
On remand the trial court (Second Order, 2013) again awarded Husband a larger share and ordered Husband to pay Wife an equalization payment of $21,886.16; the appellate court later affirmed the Second Order.
In June 2015 Wife filed a rule to show cause alleging Husband failed to pay the equalization amount, failed to turn over $2,730.55 (half of an insurance settlement check), and failed to return personal property valued at $1,090.
Husband filed a competing rule to show cause alleging Wife improperly retained $12,617.94 from money market accounts.
After a November 29, 2016 hearing the trial court issued findings concluding Wife had received the full insurance check proceeds, Wife had abandoned the personal property, neither party proved entitlement to the disputed bank accounts, and Husband had not paid the equalization payment; the court denied both contempt motions and found neither party in contempt.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the findings on the check and personal property but reversed the trial court’s conclusion that Husband was relieved of the equalization obligation and remanded to determine whether his failure to pay constitutes contempt.

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether Wife received full proceeds of the Allstate check	Wife: she did not receive the full proceeds and Husband converted funds	Husband: Wife personally endorsed and received half; bank later debited his account and sent her the remaining half	Court: Husband’s testimony and evidence supported finding Wife received full check; no contempt for check turnover
Whether Wife abandoned certain personal property	Wife: Husband failed to deliver listed items valued ~$1,090	Husband: property remained at his residence; Wife made no attempt to retrieve items	Court: Wife had opportunity but did not attempt retrieval; court reasonably found abandonment; no contempt
Whether Husband is obligated to make $21,886.16 equalization payment and whether nonpayment is contempt	Wife: Husband admitted nonpayment; he is bound by Second Order and may be in contempt	Husband: alleged offsets from Wife’s retention of bank accounts and later argued concealment (law of the case limits this)	Court of Appeals: trial court erred in concluding Husband was relieved of obligation; remanded to determine if nonpayment constitutes contempt
Sufficiency/form of rule to show cause pleading	Wife: rule alleged specific failures to pay/turnover	Husband: later argued the rule lacked statutory specificity	Court: Husband waived challenge by not raising it below; appellate court did not decide statutory-form issue

Meade v. Levett, 671 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (elements and burden for contempt for disobeying court order)
Martinal v. Lake O' the Woods Club, Inc., 225 N.E.2d 183 (Ind. 1967) (orders must be clear and certain to support contempt)
Hoeppner v. Slagle, 231 N.E.2d 51 (Ind. App. 1967) (abandonment requires intent and relinquishment)
Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (uncontradicted evidence of willful disobedience supports contempt)
Cowden v. Cowden, 661 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (deferential review of trial-court credibility and dissolution decisions)
Eisenhut v. Eisenhut, 994 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sua sponte findings control only issues they cover; general-judgment standard otherwise)
Meyer v. Wolvos, 707 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (trial court’s inherent power to enforce compliance with its orders)