Dorothy Campbell v. Mark Reed Campbell
118 N.E.3d 817
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dorothy and Mark Campbell married in 1991; no children. Dorothy stopped working in 1996 due to long‑standing medical problems and has received Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits dating to 1997/2001.
- The parties separated in spring 2016, sold the marital residence, paid debts, and Dorothy filed for dissolution in May 2016 seeking spousal maintenance and equitable division.
- At the November 9, 2017 dissolution decree the trial court denied Dorothy’s request for spousal maintenance, valued a 2012 Buick Enclave at $21,143, and ordered an equal division of marital assets (with an equalization payment to Dorothy).
- Dorothy moved to correct error as to maintenance and the vehicle valuation; the trial court denied the motion and Dorothy appealed.
- The appellate majority affirmed: it upheld the denial of incapacity maintenance as within the trial court’s discretion and upheld the vehicle valuation as supported by Kelley Blue Book evidence; a concurring/dissent would have remanded on maintenance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying spousal (incapacity) maintenance | Dorothy argued she is disabled, receives SSD, cannot work, and thus maintenance is warranted | Trial court and Mark argued court properly exercised discretion; evidence did not show incapacity materially affected ability to support herself (trial court noted lack of vocational evidence and questioned whether benefits were retirement) | Affirmed. Appellate court found trial court’s special findings not clearly erroneous and denial was within discretion (majority). Concurring judge would remand, finding evidence of SSD and Dorothy’s testimony warranted reconsideration. |
| Whether trial court erred in valuing the 2012 Buick Enclave at ~$21,143 | Dorothy testified vehicle worth ~$10–14k based on Kelley Blue Book but produced no documentation | Mark produced a Kelley Blue Book trade‑in value of $21,143 | Affirmed. Valuation was within range of evidence; trial court properly relied on Mark’s KBB report and rejected Dorothy’s unsupported estimate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. 2001) (treatment of findings when incapacity maintenance is denied)
- Alexander v. Alexander, 980 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (appellate standard for reviewing special findings and credibility)
- Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (maintenance award is discretionary)
- Palmby v. Palmby, 10 N.E.3d 580 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (circumstances for court‑ordered maintenance)
- Trabucco v. Trabucco, 944 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court’s discretion in property valuation)
- Goossens v. Goossens, 829 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming valuations within evidentiary range)
- Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (rejecting unsupported valuation testimony)
- Paxton v. Paxton, 420 N.E.2d 1346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (medical testimony not required where spouse receives SSD and testifies to incapacity)