Estudillo v. Estudillo
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1841
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Married in 2000; two current children and two from prior relationships; both spouses worked at Indiana Packers Corporation.
- Two marital properties: Bluff Street (717 South Bluff Street) and Prairie Court (502 Prairie Court), with mortgages/lines of credit; titled in Husband's name only.
- Bluff Street bought with 2001 personal injury settlement proceeds; building materials financed by joint loan and two credit cards.
- Prairie Court financed with joint and Husband-only debt; title remained in Husband's name; later transfers toward third parties.
- Trial court found substantial dissipation: transfers to third parties, rent collection by Husband, and jewelry disappearance; Wife claimed no interest in Turpie Street property, but court considered Husband's interest for disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prairie Court is in the marital pot | Husband argues Prairie Court is not marital since daughter holds title. | Estudillo contends court may consider use/occupancy of third-party titled property. | Court did not abuse discretion; considered Husband's interest in third-party titled property in distribution. |
| Whether dissipation justifies an unequal division | Husband claims presumption of equal division was not rebutted. | Court found extensive dissipation by Husband (transfers, concealment, unexplained deposits). | Court properly varied from equal division due to dissipation. |
| Whether loans from brothers were proven obligations | Husband claimed loans of $24,100 and $22,000 from brothers. | No credible proof of these loans; checks and evidence insufficient. | Court correctly found no proven loan obligations. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Dall, 681 N.E.2d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (equitable interest in property titled in a nonparty may require joining the nonparty; asset not automatically in marital pot)
- England v. England, 865 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (use and occupancy of third-party property may be considered in distribution)
- Hacker v. Hacker, 659 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (occupancy of a family asset by one spouse relevant to distribution)
- Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (dissipation involves waste or concealment of marital assets)
- Coyle v. Coyle, 671 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (dissipation factors include intent, benefit, timing, and excessiveness)
- Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (two-tier review; deference to trial court’s property division)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (two-step process: define marital property, then divide with equal-presumption and rebuttal factors)
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (two-tier appellate review for findings of fact)