Daylene M. (Atchison) Coleman v. Scott A. Atchison
9 N.E.3d 224
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Daylene Coleman (Wife) and Scott Atchison (Husband) married in 2000; no children of the marriage. Wife became disabled in 2004 and began receiving SSDI in April 2006.
- Wife filed for dissolution on January 10, 2011; final hearing held June 20, 2013 in Wells Circuit Court.
- Parties stipulated that Wife is physically or mentally incapacitated so that her ability to support herself is materially affected.
- The dissolution court found Wife had rebutted the presumption of an equal property division and articulated Temple factors when addressing maintenance, but ultimately (and inconsistently) denied incapacity maintenance.
- Although the court found a rebuttal to equal division was warranted (favoring Wife), it nevertheless divided the marital estate equally (50/50).
- Wife appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to (1) either award incapacity maintenance or identify specific extenuating circumstances justifying denial, and (2) award Wife more than 50% of the marital estate consistent with the court’s finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying incapacity maintenance | Coleman: Stipulation of incapacity requires maintenance absent extenuating circumstances; court must award maintenance | Atchison: Court may consider Temple factors and deny maintenance based on overall circumstances | Court found inconsistency: remanded to either award maintenance or identify extenuating circumstances directly related to statutory criteria (per Cannon) |
| Whether division of marital estate was erroneous | Coleman: She rebutted the presumption of equal division and is entitled to a division weighted in her favor | Atchison: (no appellee brief filed) Court nevertheless divided assets equally | Court held the 50/50 split contradicted its finding that equal division was rebutted; remanded to award Coleman >50% |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. 2001) (when incapacity is found, courts should normally award maintenance absent extenuating circumstances related to statutory criteria)
- Temple v. Temple, 328 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (lists factors for determining propriety and amount of maintenance)
- Trabucco v. Trabucco, 944 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for findings and conclusions requested under Trial Rule 52)
- Hardebeck v. Hardebeck, 917 N.E.2d 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory framework and presumption favoring equal division of marital property)