Joseph H. Harrison, Jr. v. Terry Royal Harrison, 82A01-1611-DR-2699

Joseph H. Harrison, Jr. (Husband) and Terry Royal Harrison (Wife) married in 1985; Husband filed for dissolution in October 2015.
Wife’s father established six nearly identical irrevocable Royal Family Trusts (2003–2014); Wife and four sisters are co-trustees and beneficiaries.
Trusts permit distributions of income or principal only by majority vote of co-trustees; distributions are discretionary and trustees are not required to distribute.
Husband petitioned to have Wife’s interests in the trusts included in the marital pot for division; Wife argued the interests are speculative expectancies with no present pecuniary value.
Trial court found Wife’s interests were remote and speculative (no present enforceable pecuniary right) and excluded the trusts from the marital estate; interlocutory appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wife’s interests in discretionary irrevocable family trusts are marital property subject to division	Husband: Wife has an interest that should be included in the marital pot for valuation and division	Wife: Interests are mere expectancies subject to complete defeasance and trustee discretion; no present pecuniary value	Court: Exclusion affirmed — interests are too remote/speculative to be marital assets

Antonacopulos v. Antonacopulos, 753 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (standard of appellate review for property division discretion)
Loeb v. Loeb, 301 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 1973) (future interests subject to complete defeasance may be too remote for inclusion in marital pot)
Fiste v. Fiste, 627 N.E.2d 1368 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (remainder interests too remote to be marital property)
Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (definition and scope of marital property under dissolution statutes)
In re Marriage of Jones, 812 P.2d 1152 (Colo. 1991) (past discretionary distributions do not change the underlying discretionary nature of a trust)