David K. Miller v. Joy A. (Miller) Brown
83 N.E.3d 1252
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- David Miller (Father) opened two 529 college-savings accounts during the marriage, naming the couple’s two sons as beneficiaries; the accounts remained titled in Father’s name after the 2010 divorce.
- Mother opened two separate 529 accounts after the divorce for the same beneficiaries; neither the dissolution agreement nor the parties’ property division expressly addressed the original 529 accounts.
- The older son (Z.M.) attended college, withdrew, and Mother’s petition seeking reimbursement for his expenses was dismissed as untimely; she did not appeal that dismissal.
- Mother later petitioned for contribution toward the younger son N.M.’s college expenses; at hearing Mother had consolidated her 529 funds (~$11,400) into one account for N.M., while Father’s two 529s held roughly $21,000 (Z.M.) and $25,000 (N.M.).
- The trial court ordered all 529 funds consolidated into a single account with Mother and Father as equal co-owners, directed the consolidated account be used first for N.M.’s college expenses, and apportioned additional expenses 55% to Mother and 45% to Father after the 529s were exhausted.
- Father appealed only the portion requiring creation of a jointly owned 529 account; he did not challenge the child-support / contribution amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 529 funds are the children’s property or Father’s property | 529 funds are effectively the children’s property held for them; Mother called funds the children’s separate property | Father is the account owner under the account documents; beneficiaries are not owners | Funds are Father’s property; beneficiaries are not owners of Father-titled 529s |
| Whether the trial court could, post-dissolution, make Mother a co-owner of Father’s 529 accounts | Trial court has authority under its child-support powers (Ind. Code § 31-16-6-3) and precedents to set apart property for child support, justifying making Mother co-owner | Post-dissolution the court lacks authority to re-divide property or convert Father’s separate property into joint ownership; ordering co-ownership is a post-dissolution property division beyond the court’s power | Court erred: it may “set apart” property for child support but may not, post-dissolution, create a new property co-ownership interest in Father’s 529 accounts |
| Appropriate remedy and further proceedings | Mother sought consolidation and co-ownership to secure payment and access for N.M.’s expenses | Father would accept orders requiring him to pay his share or have funds earmarked but opposes making Mother co-owner | Order creating jointly owned account reversed; case remanded for trial court to fashion permissible relief (e.g., set apart or earmark Father’s funds for N.M.’s expenses) |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. Austin, 20 N.E.3d 573 (Ind. Ct. App.) (timeliness of post-majority college-expense claims)
- Davidson v. Davidson, 540 N.E.2d 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (trial court property-allocation at dissolution to fund child’s college)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 550 N.E.2d 1332 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (post-dissolution orders that operate as child-support measures are authorized)
- Rohrer v. Rohrer, 734 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (court must finally dispose of marital assets in the dissolution judgment)