Shravan Vudumu v. Namratha Meesala (mem. dec.)
03A05-1512-DR-2375
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Husband (Vudumu) and Wife (Meesala) married Feb 15, 2013; Husband filed for dissolution Dec 18, 2014; final hearing Oct 16, 2015 and decree issued Oct 29, 2015.
- Trial court identified the marital estate, excluded certain Wife assets, valued wedding jewelry at $16,500, and ordered a 60/40 division in Husband’s favor with a $48,434.31 equalization payment to Wife.
- Wife received a $15,673.16 gift from her father during the marriage and used it to purchase an apartment valued at $16,000; the trial court excluded both from the marital estate.
- Wife’s wedding jewelry (including items given to Husband by Wife’s family) was removed by Husband’s parents and taken to India; Wife testified to a $16,500 total value and offered photographs.
- Husband transferred $75,388.36 from his U.S. credit union account to an Indian bank account during the marriage; the court found him uncooperative and included those funds in the marital estate credited to Husband.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of Wife’s gift and apartment from marital estate | Trial court properly excluded those assets | They should be included; gift used to buy apartment so count once; exclusion was error but harmless | Reversed: court erred to exclude; remanded to include both but count gift and apartment only once |
| 2. Valuation of wedding jewelry at $16,500 | Insufficient evidence; no receipts or appraisal; Husband denied jewelry existed | Wife testified to value, produced wedding photos; court found her credible | Affirmed: court reasonably credited Wife’s testimony and included $16,500 |
| 3. Equalization payment of $48,434.31 to Wife | Payment improperly compensates Wife beyond marital assets or for dissipation | Court included transferred funds as marital, credited to Husband, then equalized to achieve 60/40 split | Affirmed: payment was a lawful equalization to effect 60/40 division; no dissipation finding |
Key Cases Cited
- DeSalle v. Gentry, 818 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review for property division)
- Antonacopulos v. Antonacopulos, 753 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Hatten v. Hatten, 825 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (presumption that court complied with statutory guidelines in property division)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (assets must be included in marital estate before awarding solely to one spouse)
- Everette v. Everette, 841 N.E.2d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (avoidance of double-counting assets in dissolution decrees)
- Sanjari v. Sanjari, 755 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court discretion in valuing property)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 650 N.E.2d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (division of marital property committed to trial court)
- Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (purpose of equalization payments)
- In re Marriage of McManama, 399 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 1980) (trial court may not compensate for pre-separation dissipation)