Michael Kelley v. Wendy Kelley (mem. dec.)
45A04-1607-DR-1705
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Wife received a $305,865.26 distribution from her grandfather’s estate in May 2008 and used those funds to buy the house later titled in both spouses’ names before their September 2008 marriage.
- The parties had one child (born 2009); the home was the only asset of significant value and a home equity line had a $19,639.28 balance at separation.
- Wife filed for dissolution in July 2014; a provisional order awarded custody to Wife and required Husband to pay child support, which Husband failed to pay; Husband also failed to return Wife’s jewelry.
- At the final hearing the parties settled custody/child-support issues and left property division of the home and allocation of the HELOC to the court.
- The trial court found Wife provided virtually all funds for the home (gift/inheritance pre-marriage), Husband brought no significant assets into the marriage, Husband had limited earnings and made little contribution during the proceedings, and awarding the home solely to Wife was justified.
- Trial court awarded the marital home and the HELOC liability to Wife; Husband appealed, arguing the division was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate (awarding the home solely to Wife) | The unequal award is justified because Wife contributed the funds (gift/inheritance) that purchased the home pre-marriage, Husband brought no assets and failed to contribute during the marriage or provisional period | The unequal award was an abuse of discretion; relies on Swinney to argue an almost entirely one-sided award is improper | No abuse of discretion: court’s findings (pre-marital gift/inheritance, Husband’s lack of contribution, child’s stability, HELOC debt) support an unequal division; Swinney distinguishable |
| Whether Swinney controls the outcome | Trial court: Swinney is distinguishable because there the gifts were made jointly and the court improperly excluded the residence from the marital pot; here funds were acquired by Wife alone pre-marriage and home is treated as marital asset | Husband contends Swinney requires a more equal distribution despite gift-origin funds | Swinney is distinguishable; gifts here were to Wife alone, not jointly, and the court properly considered the home part of the marital estate |
Key Cases Cited
- Marion Cnty. Auditor v. Sawmill Creek, LLC, 964 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2012) (standard for reviewing findings and judgments under Trial Rule 52(A))
- Eye v. Eye, 849 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for property division in dissolution)
- McCord v. McCord, 852 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (strong presumption that trial court complied with statutory factors in property division)
- DeSalle v. Gentry, 818 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (presumption discussion relating to trial-court consideration of statutory factors)
- Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate review limits on substituting court’s judgment for trial court’s division)
- Swinney v. Swinney, 419 N.E.2d 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (distinguished; addressed improper near-100% award where gifts were made to both spouses jointly)