Timothy B. Hopper v. Angela C. Hopper (mem. dec.)
65A01-1510-DR-1603
Ind. Ct. App.Aug 24, 2016Background
- Timothy and Angela Hopper married in 1999, had one child, and Angela filed for dissolution in April 2014.
- Timothy purchased Carter Plumbing in 2009, later bought out a partner in 2012; business included intangible rights (name, goodwill, non-compete protections).
- Timothy retained an appraiser (Pritchett) who valued Carter Plumbing at $1,000 using an April 14, 2014 date and excluding personal goodwill because Timothy would not sign a covenant not to compete.
- Angela introduced an August 25, 2014 personal financial statement signed by Timothy listing Carter Plumbing at $200,000 (balance sheet showing ownership equity ≈ $197,315) and other evidence (STA report, CPA analysis) showing equity rose after April 2014.
- The trial court valued Carter Plumbing at $200,000, awarded the business to Timothy, equalized the marital estate with a payment from Timothy to Angela, and ordered Timothy to pay $3,000 of Angela’s attorney fees.
- Timothy appealed the valuation and alleged hearsay; Angela cross-appealed the limited attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Angela) | Defendant's Argument (Timothy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by valuing Carter Plumbing at $200,000 | Court should rely on Timothy’s August 25, 2014 personal financial statement and ensuing balance sheet showing ≈$197k equity | Trial court erred: Pritchett’s appraisal (using 4/14/14) and other evidence show much lower market value; Timothy’s $200k lacks methodology and may include personal goodwill or unmarked-to-market entries | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; $200k supported by balance sheet evidence and reasonable inferences |
| Whether trial court relied on impermissible hearsay (STA report stating Timothy valued business at $400,000) | STA report admissible or harmless if considered | STA report was hearsay and was improperly admitted/relied upon | Harmless-error: even if STA report was admitted in error, court’s conclusions relied on Timothy’s $200k statement; any error did not affect substantial rights |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding Angela only $3,000 in attorney fees | Angela sought full fees, asserting Timothy’s discovery misconduct caused most fees | Trial court balanced parties’ relative resources and found equalization payment made them substantially on par; awarded limited fees for discovery misconduct | Affirmed: $3,000 fee award was within trial court’s broad discretion and not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Morey v. Morey, 49 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court property-valuation review; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Marriage of Nickels, 834 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (courts will not substitute appellate judgment for trial court on valuation)
- Court View Centre, L.L.C. v. Witt, 753 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (owner competent to opine on business value if basis shown)
- Yoon v. Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 1999) (distinguishing personal goodwill from enterprise goodwill for division)
- Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court may choose valuation methodology and is not required to use fair-market-sale value)
- Techna-Fit, Inc. v. Fluid Transfer Products, Inc., 45 N.E.3d 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (harmless-error analysis for erroneously admitted evidence)
- Hendricks v. Hendricks, 784 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (factors and standard for awarding attorney fees in dissolution)