Rebecca Stormer v. David Zander (mem. dec.)
45A05-1701-DR-114
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Parties married in 2009; Husband (Zander) owned a farmhouse and extensive farm equipment pre-marriage; Wife (Stormer) owned a log house (encumbered) and a condo pre-marriage and later filed bankruptcy.
- Wife’s bankruptcy trustee sold the log house; Wife (on counsel’s advice) accepted a distribution that resulted in Husband receiving $8,000 from the sale.
- During the marriage Wife gambled heavily (≈ $48,000 losses) and made unauthorized withdrawals and forgeries against Husband’s account; Husband suffered an unrelated fraud loss of ≈ $13,000.
- After separation Wife removed and sold or transferred substantial items of Husband’s personal property from the farmhouse.
- Trial court dissolved the marriage and, after hearing, found assets and values (farmhouse $335,000; log house proceeds $68,604.58; Illinois condo $15,000), found dissipation by Wife, and awarded Husband roughly 80% of the marital estate (farmhouse and barn contents); Wife received log-house proceeds and the Illinois condo.
- Wife appealed, arguing (1) unequal division was an abuse of discretion and (2) the $8,000 awarded to Husband from the bankruptcy proceeds should be returned.
Issues
| Issue | Stormer’s Argument | Zander’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by dividing marital estate ~80/20 in favor of Husband | Division should be equal under presumptive 50/50; parties comingle assets and both engaged in dissipation/disposition | Trial court properly considered statutory factors (pre-marriage assets, contributions, dissipation—Wife dissipated more, including post-separation disposal of Husband’s property) | No abuse of discretion; unequal division justified by statutory factors and evidence of dissipation by Wife |
| Whether Husband must return $8,000 from log-house bankruptcy proceeds | $8,000 should be returned to Wife | Wife never asked trial court to order return; distribution treated in property division | Issue waived on appeal for failure to raise below; court will not review it |
Key Cases Cited
- Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (disposition of marital assets committed to trial court’s discretion)
- Love v. Love, 10 N.E.3d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (when ordering unequal division, trial court must consider statutory factors)
- Eye v. Eye, 849 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court not required to explicitly recite each statutory factor but review must be able to infer consideration)
- Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, 981 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 2013) (issues presented first on appeal generally waived)
- Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 2000) (party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal)