John Randall Strietelmeier v. Tammie Nichols Strietelmeier (mem. dec.)
03A01-1608-DR-1831
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Randy and Tammie Strietelmeier divorced after a bifurcated proceeding; court entered final dissolution and property division on January 13, 2016.
- The decree awarded personal property to Tammie per her Exhibit B, with certain exceptions (e.g., half the children’s ornaments to Randy), awarded the marital residence to Randy, and required Centra Credit Union children’s accounts to remain as minor accounts with both parents as co-custodians and joint-signature withdrawals.
- Randy filed a contempt petition alleging Tammie removed items from the home that were awarded to him or not listed on Exhibit B and sought reimbursement for multiple items and incidental costs.
- Tammie filed a contempt petition alleging Randy removed her as co-custodian from the children’s Centra accounts and failed to divide the 2015 tax refund.
- After evidentiary hearings, the trial court found both parties in contempt but concluded the contempts were a wash and imposed no sanctions; Randy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Randy) | Defendant's Argument (Tammie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in holding Randy in contempt for transferring children’s accounts | Randy conceded transfer but contended he could not be held in contempt because Tammie suffered no injury and he was not given an opportunity to purge | Tammie and trial court maintained transfer violated the co-custodian/joint-signature requirement and thus injured Tammie’s interest | Court affirmed contempt: transfer removed Tammie’s required consent and injured her; Randy did not show he requested an opportunity to purge, so none was required by statute |
| Whether trial court erred by finding Tammie in contempt but imposing no sanctions | Randy argued the court should have ordered return of items or monetary compensation/recalculation of asset division for items Tammie removed | Tammie presented testimony that she did not take all listed items and that some items were gifts to her; trial court weighed credibility | Court affirmed: trial court acted within discretion to find contempts a wash and impose no sanctions; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartlemay v. Witt, 892 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (contempt punishment is generally within trial court’s discretion)
- Aaron v. Scott, 851 N.E.2d 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (refusal to punish for contempt is discretionary)
- Estate of Kappel v. Kappel, 979 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for findings and conclusions: evidence supports findings and findings support judgment analysis)
- Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2016) (statutory requirement to allow purge applies only on proper showing)