Smith v. Smith
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2443
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Bruce and Morgan Smith were married for twenty years with three children and sought dissolution.
- Bench trial determined assets and debts; total marital assets were $45,830 and debts $39,367, net $6,463.
- Income: Bruce $1,301/week; Morgan $686/week, or capable earnings respectively.
- Trial court found Morgan rebutted the equal-division presumption due to economic circumstances and earning abilities.
- Assets and debts were allocated: Morgan $19,481; Bruce $26,349; Morgan debt $8,040.50; Bruce debt $31,326.50; net Morgan $11,440.50; Bruce -$4,977.50.
- Brad dissipation of assets not found; Bruce sought relief via Motion to Correct Errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the division of the marital estate was an abuse of discretion | Smith argues Morgan received more than half the assets | Smith contends deviation justified by earnings disparity | Yes; award exceeded net estate, constituting abuse and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 889 N.E.2d 374 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (two-tier standard of review for findings)
- Beard v. Beard, 758 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (one-pot theory and inclusion of assets and liabilities)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (one-pot theory; deviation from equal division allowed with rational basis)
- Capehart v. Capehart, 705 N.E.2d 533 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (marital property includes assets and liabilities; one-pot division)
- Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (excessive division without dissipation finding is improper maintenance)
- Pitman v. Pitman, 721 N.E.2d 260 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (dissipation considerations in property division)
- In re Marriage of Sloss, 526 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (dissipation and maintenance principles in division)
- In re Marriage of Buntin, 496 N.E.2d 1351 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (limits on divestiture of marital assets without dissipation finding)
- Hacker v. Hacker, 659 N.E.2d 1104 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (deviation requires rational basis)
- Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57 (Ind.2002) (overall division reviewed, not item-by-item)