In Re: the Marriage of: Renita A. Marek and Edward Marek (mem. dec.), 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 72

Edward and Renita Marek married in 1978; Husband worked full time at Ford throughout the marriage; Wife left full‑time work to be a homemaker (1982–1997), then worked part‑time at a library (~21 hrs/wk at $13.39/hr) and did not seek full‑time work there.
Wife inherited funds in 2005 and 2009; proceeds (~$90,000 at final hearing) remained in accounts titled solely in Wife’s name and were largely not used for family purposes (one $7,000 withdrawal noted).
Husband received a workers’ compensation settlement; the parties agreed to include only the temporary total disability portion (~$19,898.88) in the marital pot.
The parties stipulated values for many assets; total marital estate (including Wife’s inheritance accounts) was $562,648.19; the trial court divided the estate equally and assigned the inheritance accounts to Wife.
Trial court found Wife had limited education, lengthy workforce absence, low current earnings (~$14,000/yr) versus Husband’s ~$80,000/yr, and that Wife was physically capable of full‑time work but had not applied for existing full‑time library positions.
Trial court concluded Wife failed to rebut the statutory presumption that an equal division was just and reasonable; appellate majority reversed, holding the findings did not support equal division and remanded for a roughly 60/40 split in Wife’s favor (by setting over the inheritance to Wife).

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether Wife rebutted the statutory presumption that equal division is just and reasonable	Wife argued her inherited funds, the fact they were kept separate and not commingled, her limited education and long workforce absence, low earnings and lack of retirement benefits rebut the presumption and warrant unequal division (65/35 or set over inheritance)	Husband argued the statutory presumption of equal division applies and Wife failed to prove that an equal split would be unjust; trial court’s discretion should be upheld	Majority: Wife met burden on appeal — findings show inheritance was kept separate, Husband didn’t contribute, and economic disparity favors unequal split; trial court’s findings do not support equal division; reverse and remand for adjustment (approx. 60/40). Dissent: would affirm (rational basis existed for equal division).

Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. 2002) (division of marital property is fact‑sensitive and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Beckley v. Beckley, 822 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 2005) (party seeking to rebut presumption of equal division bears the burden)
Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (one‑pot theory: most marital property is subject to division)
Eye v. Eye, 849 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (inherited property must be considered with other statutory factors to determine if unequal division is warranted)
Castaneda v. Castaneda, 615 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (setting aside inheritance to spouse may rebut presumption when funds kept separate and not co‑mingled)
Love v. Love, 10 N.E.3d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reversing property division: no rational basis equals abuse of discretion)
Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court must consider statutory factors and may be reversed for disregarding them)
Leisure v. Leisure, 605 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. 1993) (certain workers’ compensation proceeds may be excluded from marital estate)