Hardin v. Hardin
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 111
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Married 1979, divorced 1986, remarried 1993, separated 2010; dissolution petition filed 2010.
- Trial court deviated from 54-46 equal division, awarding most assets to Wife but dividing Husband's pension via a coverture fraction.
- Husband’s monthly pension is $1,695; 45% (approx. 38 years) of the pension accrued during the second marriage; calculations yielded $317 monthly due from Husband to Wife after cross-crediting Wife’s annuity.
- Survivor’s benefit from Husband’s pension awarded entirely to Wife; Court may adjust pension amount to fund survivor’s benefit.
- Dispute over whether 17-year numerator (second marriage period) or 7-year numerator (time pension accrued) should be used in the coverture fraction.
- On appeal, Court reverses the pension division due to incorrect numerator; affirms survivor’s-benefit award but remands on cost allocation; finds no basis to consider tax consequences as not supported by record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the coverture fraction numerically incorrect? | Hardin: numerator should be 7, not 17. | Hardin failed to prove accrual ceased; 38 years period used. | Preston supports 7-year numerator; court erred by using 17. |
| Should Wife receive the entire survivor’s benefit? | Wife’s share plus survivor’s benefit overburdens Husband. | Survivor’s benefit awarded to Wife is supported by findings and law. | Yes, entire survivor’s benefit to Wife upheld; affirmed on this issue. |
| Who pays the monthly cost of the survivor’s benefit? | Cost should be allocated to Wife along with survivor’s benefit. | Court is correct in not crediting the survivor’s cost in the overall division. | Court erred; remanded to require Wife to pay the monthly survivor’s cost and recompute. |
| Did the trial court need to consider tax consequences? | Tax consequences should reduce the marital estate value. | No evidence of tax consequences; invite-error waiver. | Waived due to invited error; no reversal on tax issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Preston, 704 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (coverture fraction denominator and accrual colorable framework)
- In re Marriage of Pulley, 652 N.E.2d 528 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (remand when division not close to intended apportionment)
- In re Marriage of Mulvihill, 471 N.E.2d 10 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (consideration of tax consequences in property division)
- Granger v. Granger, 579 N.E.2d 1319 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (tax consequences only for direct consequences of plan)
- Harlan v. Harlan, 560 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (tax consequences limited to inherent tax effects of disposition)