Samuel Otto Dean v. Denise Darlene Dean (mem. dec.), 19A-DC-985

Parties married in 2007, separated in 2016, dissolution granted April 2, 2019; dispute centers on division of marital estate.
Wife’s mother (Rita) originally owned 1274 Burke Shiloh Rd; transfers between family members occurred at below-market amounts; Rita intended the house to remain for Wife/family.
In 2011 Husband co‑signed a loan and Husband and Wife were added to the deed; Rita paid mortgage/taxes/insurance while living there; parties later remodeled the house (Husband served as general contractor and contributed significant labor).
The home was valued at $325,000 with a mortgage balance of $156,470 (total equity $168,530); the trial court found $122,736 of that equity derived from a family gift to Wife and set that amount aside for Wife, leaving $45,794 in the marital pot.
Trial court found Wife had over $85,000 in pre‑marital retirement/securities (kept to Wife), Husband had a 401(k and incurred student loans; court included Husband’s student loan debt in the marital pot and assigned it to Husband; court ordered a 65% (Wife)/35% (Husband) division and awarded Husband $34,697 net.
Husband appealed, challenging (1) the trial court’s valuation/treatment of the $122,736 equity as a gift excluded from division, and (2) the unequal 65/35 division (arguing insufficient credit for his sweat equity and improper reliance on his student loan).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by treating $122,736 of home equity as a gift excluded from the marital pot	Husband: no evidence supports valuation or that equity was intended solely as a gift to Wife; exclusion reduced his share	Wife: evidence (transfers, Rita’s testimony, appraisals) supports gift characterization and valuation; court may set gifted portion aside	Court: affirmed; record supports valuation and finding that the amount was a gift to Wife and could be excluded under court’s discretion
Whether the court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate 65% to Wife / 35% to Husband (including credit for Husband’s sweat equity and treatment of student loans)	Husband: court undervalued his substantial labor/sweat equity and improperly relied on his student loan to justify unequal split	Wife: court properly considered statutory factors (pre‑marital assets, incomes, ages, earning capacity, gifts) and exercise of discretion was justified	Court: affirmed; trial court permissibly deviated from equal division based on totality of circumstances, including Wife’s pre‑marital assets and Husband’s greater earning capacity; sweat‑equity and student‑loan treatment did not render division abusive

Bock v. Bock, 116 N.E.3d 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (specific findings control issues they cover; general judgment standard applies otherwise)
Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (trial court has broad discretion in property valuation and division)
Goodman v. Goodman, 94 N.E.3d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (strong presumption that trial court complied with statute; appellate court will not reweigh evidence)
Houchens v. Boschert, 758 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (party’s valuation can be competent evidence to support trial court’s valuation)
O'Connell v. O'Connell, 889 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (two‑step process: identify marital property then divide justly and reasonably)
In re Marriage of Marek, 47 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (one‑pot theory; include pre‑ and during‑marriage property in marital estate)
Capehart v. Capehart, 705 N.E.2d 533 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (marital property includes assets and liabilities)
Swinney v. Swinney, 419 N.E.2d 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) ("just and reasonable" does not require equality; court must consider total circumstances)
Nornes v. Nornes, 884 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (educational degree is not a divisible asset but may inform earning capacity)