Dele Omije v. Bethany Whilby-Omije, 24A-DR-02217

Dele Omije (Husband) and Bethany Whilby-Omije (Wife) divorced in 2015; the dissolution decree ordered the sale of a marital home in California with proceeds to be equally divided.
Husband failed to sell the home for nearly nine years, citing potential financial loss if sold immediately post-divorce.
Wife, acting pro se, filed multiple unsuccessful contempt motions before the trial court finally ordered a hearing in 2024.
At the hearing, Husband admitted he did not sell the home, and the court found him in contempt but declined to sanction him provided he complied with the original decree.
Husband then sought credits for expenses incurred post-divorce and challenged the valuation date of the home, arguing value should be set as of the dissolution decree date.
The trial and appellate courts addressed whether Husband was entitled to such credits or a fixed earlier valuation, ultimately affirming the trial court’s enforcement order.

Issue	Omije's Argument	Whilby-Omije's Argument	Held
Credit for post-dissolution home expenses	Husband should get credit for expenses after divorce	Husband’s own delay; not entitled	No evidence submitted; no credit due; expenses result of his delay
Value date for division of home sale proceeds	Home value should be fixed as of dissolution decree date	Home should be sold now, split	No abuse of discretion; sell now, split based on current proceeds

Meyer v. East, 205 N.E.3d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (trial court has broad discretion regarding property valuation in dissolution)
Smith v. Smith, 194 N.E.3d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (court will not disturb valuation absent abuse of discretion)
Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court can choose valuation date between dissolution petition and final hearing)