David John Macintosh, Jr. v. Pamela Jo Macintosh (mem. dec.)
72A01-1606-DR-1323
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- David and Pamela MacIntosh married in 2008; no children. They built a house on land Pamela inherited from her father.
- In 2013 Pamela received a $250,000 inheritance which she kept in a separate account.
- Pamela used about $160,000 of the inheritance to pay off the mortgage and to buy improvements (flooring, hot tub, above-ground pool, etc.).
- At the dissolution hearing the parties stipulated the marital residence was worth $275,000.
- The trial court’s decree (1) excluded Pamela’s inheritance from the marital pot, (2) valued the residence at $50,000 (contrary to the stipulation), divided assets/debts between the parties, and (3) directed an equalization payment from Pamela to David.
- David appealed, arguing the court erred in valuing the residence and in excluding the inheritance; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by valuing the marital residence at $50,000 when the parties stipulated it was worth $275,000 | Macintosh (Husband): stipulation is binding; court must accept $275,000 valuation | Macintosh (Wife): (implicit) trial court may adjust value in decree | The appellate court held the trial court erred; it must value the residence at $275,000 per the parties’ stipulation |
| Whether the trial court properly excluded Wife’s $250,000 inheritance from the marital pot | Macintosh: inheritance was improperly excluded and must be included in the marital pot | Macintosh (Wife): trial court set aside inheritance to Wife and excluded it from marital estate | The appellate court held the inheritance must initially be included in the marital pot; exclusion was error and remand is required |
| Whether, after inclusion, the trial court may set over the inheritance to Wife (despite commingling) | Macintosh: commingling prevents setting over the inheritance to Wife without justification | Macintosh (Wife): trial court has discretion to set over the inheritance to Wife | The court explained the trial court has discretion to set over the inheritance to Wife, but must start by including it in the marital pot and must explain any deviation from a 50/50 presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Tisdial v. Young, 925 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate review standard where appellee does not file brief; prima facie error)
- Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (one-pot rule: all marital property must be included for division)
- Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (presumption of equal division; reasons required for deviation)
- Castaneda v. Castaneda, 615 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (setting aside inheritance where funds remained separate)
- Hyde v. Hyde, 751 N.E.2d 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court must include inheritance in marital pot but retains discretion to set it over to a party)