Russell Goodman v. Stephanie Goodman
94 N.E.3d 733
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Russell and Stephanie Goodman married in 1995; they adopted Russell’s granddaughter K.G. (born 2006). Divorce proceedings began in 2012 and were highly contested over several years with extensive discovery disputes and numerous filings.
- Wife moved out in 2012; a provisional order gave Wife primary custody and provided interim arrangements for the marital residence, vehicle, business operation, and child support.
- The parties operated a family tree-trimming business; Husband controlled finances, often handled cash and gambling winnings, and admitted gambling extensively. Wife performed administrative work for the business but received little or no pay.
- The trial court held multiple final-hearing days, found Husband hid/dissipated assets (lottery/casino winnings and cash transactions), and concluded Husband underreported income.
- The court valued the marital estate at $332,839, awarded Wife 60% (requiring an equalization judgment against Husband), awarded Wife sole legal and primary physical custody of K.G., modified child support retroactive to the 2013 petition-to-modify date, and ordered Husband to reimburse $25,000 of Wife’s attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deviation from equal division of marital assets | Wife argued Husband hid/dissipated assets and had far greater income; deviation to award Wife 60% was justified | Husband argued equal division presumption should not be rebutted and tax returns show modest income | Court affirmed 60% award: evidence supported dissipation and income disparity, rebutting equal-division presumption |
| Failure to offset assets already in Wife’s possession (Camaro, personal property) | Wife contended provisional order entitled her to value/credit; her losses were considered in valuation | Husband argued credits/offsets were omitted and he complied with provisional terms | Court upheld valuation: facts supported inference Wife did not receive the $9,500 Camaro payment; personal property appraisal credited to Husband given control of residence |
| Inclusion/valuation of business goodwill | Wife sought recognition of enterprise goodwill based on long marriage and her administrative role | Husband argued goodwill was personal to him and dependent on his continued involvement | Court affirmed inclusion of enterprise goodwill ($76,748): business transferable and not purely personal goodwill |
| Allocation of business debt | Wife argued Husband should bear business debts given his control and benefit | Husband contended debts should be shared or offset by other factors | Court assigned business debt to Husband as just and reasonable given his control, dissipation, and Wife’s uncompensated labor |
| Valuation date and inclusion of certain assets (lottery winnings, 2013 gambling, property titled to daughter) | Wife relied on 2013 income/winnings as most accurate and on transfers to daughter as sham to hide assets | Husband argued some items post‑filing or owned by daughter should be excluded | Court exercised discretion to use 2013 valuations and include transfers as marital assets because evidence showed continued use/payment by Husband and attempts to conceal assets |
| Custody of K.G. | Wife sought primary custody and sole legal custody due to poor parental communication and alleged alienating conduct | Husband sought custody alleging Wife poisoned child against him | Court awarded Wife sole legal and primary physical custody: detailed findings, in-camera interviews, and GAL recommendations supported best-interest determination |
| Retroactive child support and attorney fees | Wife requested retroactive modification (to date of filing) and fee reimbursement due to Husband’s concealment and superior resources | Husband objected to retroactivity and fee award magnitude | Court modified child support retroactive to May 24, 2013 (using 2013 income including gambling) and awarded Wife $25,000 in attorney fees to be reimbursed by Husband |
Key Cases Cited
- Yoon v. Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 1999) (distinguishes enterprise goodwill from personal goodwill; enterprise goodwill divisible in dissolution)
- O’Connell v. O’Connell, 889 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (presumption that trial court complied with statutes in dividing marital property; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (trial court has discretion to set valuation date between filing and hearing)
- Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. 1986) (trial court discretion in selecting valuation date for assets)
- Russell v. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. 1997) (custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; court must consider statutory best-interest factors)