Frederick D. Petre, Jr. v. Valerie J. Petre (mem. dec.), 17A03-1612-DR-2719

Frederick D. Petre, Jr. (Husband) and Valerie J. Petre (Wife) divorced after a marriage beginning in 2007; Wife filed for dissolution in January 2016.
Before marriage Husband had a contingent interest in a Waterloo property (parents retained life estates); his mother died during the marriage, converting his contingent interest to fee simple.
The marital estate also included retirement and savings accounts, three vehicles, small bank accounts, and several liabilities; Wife had little income and no retirement savings, Husband earned more.
The parties lived in the Waterloo residence during most of the marriage; both contributed to maintenance, insurance, taxes, and improvements.
Wife testified the assessor valued the property at $72,700 (2016); Husband relied on a 2014 appraisal valuing it at $50,000 and contested the 2016 assessment.
Trial court averaged assessed structure values (2013–2016) and added increased land value to set the residence value at $66,100, included the residence in the marital pot, and divided the marital estate equally, awarding the home to Husband with offsetting cash/QDRO transfers to Wife.

Issue	Petre (Husband) Argument	Wife Argument	Held
Whether the Waterloo residence should be excluded from the marital estate	The residence was Husband’s pre-marriage property (acquired by gift/inheritance) and thus should be excluded from the marital pot	Because Husband had a vested interest that ripened into fee simple during the marriage and both spouses used/maintained it, it is marital property to be divided	Trial court correctly included the residence in the marital estate (Indiana is a "one-pot" jurisdiction; vested pre-marital interests are still subject to division)
Whether the trial court erred in valuing the residence at $66,100	Court relied on assessor records rather than a full appraisal; Husband argued valuation was too high	Assessor values and averaging prior assessed values provided reasonable evidence of value	Valuation affirmed; court’s averaging method and reliance on assessed values were supported by evidence and reasonable inference

Breeden v. Breeden, 678 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court has broad discretion in distributing marital property)
In re Marriage of Bartley, 712 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (strong presumption that trial court considered statutory factors in property division)
Hann v. Hann, 655 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (one-pot rule: vested interests are includable in marital estate)
Wallace v. Wallace, 714 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (systematic exclusion of marital assets from the pot is erroneous)
Coffey v. Coffey, 649 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (trial court may award an asset solely to one spouse as part of equitable division)
Morey v. Morey, 49 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate review defers to trial court valuation when evidence supports it)
Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (no error where trial court valuation falls within evidentiary range)