In Re: The Marriage of Robin R. Phillips v. Thomas R. Lloyd (mem. dec.)
90A05-1605-DR-1221
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- Robin (Wife) and Lloyd (Husband) cohabitated for years, married in 2006; Wife owned a restaurant and multiple rental properties acquired largely before and during the relationship.
- Wife paid mortgages, bills, and purchased several rental properties; Husband worked, contributed labor to property flips and the restaurant, and provided health insurance.
- Wife sold three Zanesville rental properties in April 2015 and netted $49,403; she used sale proceeds and other funds to pay debts, including payments to her mother (Edwards).
- Husband filed for dissolution in April 2015; parties mediated a partial settlement but left real estate and debts for the trial court to divide.
- The trial court adopted Husband’s proposed findings verbatim, valued the marital estate, ordered an equal division, and directed Wife to pay an equalization judgment (or sell/auction property if she failed to pay).
- Wife appealed, challenging the valuation (omitted debts and a mowing bill; Huntington Rental valuation) and the division (equal split and allocation of sale/auction costs).
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court properly value the marital estate? | Trial court omitted marital debts paid from Zanesville sale proceeds and a $774 mowing bill, understating liabilities. | Trial court accounted for Edwards loan and used proposed figures; mowing bill argued de minimis. | Reversed in part: court abused discretion by excluding additional debts and the mowing bill; remand to include them. |
| Was Huntington Rental valuation incorrect? | Wife contends trial court used wrong mortgage figure, affecting net value. | Husband/trial court relied on appraisal and mortgage figure in record; Wife’s record citation inadequate. | Waived: appellate argument undeveloped and unsupported in record; not reviewed. |
| Was equal division of marital estate improper? | Wife argued many assets were premarital/separately owned and she should receive unequal share. | Husband argued commingling and marital contributions justified equal split. | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found commingling and marital contributions; equal division not an abuse of discretion. |
| Did the court err by not allocating sale/auction costs? | Order forces Wife to sell if she cannot pay; not allocating costs shifts sale expenses to Wife and effectively benefits Husband. | No precise costs were proven at hearing; but Husband indicated some willingness to share costs. | Reversed in part: trial court abused discretion by allocating potential sale/auction costs solely to Wife; remand to require shared allocation and account for costs in valuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (standard for reviewing Trial Rule 52(A) findings and abuse of discretion).
- Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard in property division).
- Birkhimer v. Birkhimer, 981 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (marital property includes assets and liabilities; court must divide all property and debts).
- Marek v. In re Marriage of Marek, 47 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (unequal division required when findings and statutory factors support it).
- Doyle v. Doyle, 756 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (sequestration of premarital assets and appreciation may support exclusion from marital pot).
- Keown v. Keown, 883 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (court may reduce property value by sale costs when sale is ordered and costs are evidenced).
- Dowden v. Allman, 696 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (error where sale costs included without ordering a sale).
- Campbell v. Campbell, 993 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (presumption of equal division and requirement to articulate rational basis for deviations).