Reta M. Hollowell v. Donald Hollowell (mem. dec.)
49A02-1605-DR-985
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Reta and Donald Hollowell married in 1973; Reta became disabled in 1979 and receives Social Security disability (~$8,684/year); Donald earns ~$82,524/year.
- Reta filed for dissolution in April 2015; the parties owned a house, three dogs, and each owned a car; they agreed on items in the marital pot.
- At trial Reta requested the marital residence, her car, the dogs, equal division of home equity, and requested $500/week spousal maintenance; Donald requested the house, two dogs, his vehicle, and offered $500/month maintenance.
- The trial court found Reta disabled, awarded $500/month incapacity maintenance to Reta, awarded Donald the house and two dogs, and equalized the division by awarding Reta $34,628 from Donald’s deferred compensation.
- Reta moved to correct error alleging possible ex parte submission of a proposed order and argued the maintenance amount and property division were improper; she later apologized for misconduct allegations. The trial court denied the motion; Reta appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $500/month incapacity maintenance was an abuse of discretion | Hollowell argued $500/month was excessively low and an abuse of discretion | Donald argued the amount was reasonable and within court discretion | The court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in awarding $500/month |
| Whether equal division of marital property was an abuse of discretion | Hollowell argued she should receive more than 50% of the marital estate (raised post-trial) | Donald argued the statutory presumption of equal division applies and trial court acted within discretion | Waived because not argued at trial; on merits court affirmed equal division as not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bizik v. Bizik, 753 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App.) (reviews standard and deference for spousal maintenance awards)
- Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App.) (describes three types of maintenance, including incapacity maintenance)
- Old Utica School Preservation, Inc. v. Utica Tp., 7 N.E.3d 327 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for motions to correct error is abuse of discretion)
- Harris v. Harris, 42 N.E.3d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App.) (statutory presumption favoring equal division of marital property)
- Pham v. Pham, 650 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App.) (rejected maintenance awards that require paying spouse virtually all earnings)
- Yater v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Health, 677 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App.) (issues available at trial cannot be raised first in a motion to correct error)