Trabucco v. Trabucco
944 N.E.2d 544
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband is a board-certified urologist; Wife did not work outside the home and had no high school diploma.
- During the marriage, the family relocated to Indiana; Wife supported Husband's practice and had health issues; both pleaded guilty to a marijuana-related offense in 2005.
- Husband's income fluctuated: 2004–2008 tax years show volatility; in 2007 he started Urology Institute in Nevada with a claimed salary of $5,000/month, later reporting lower figures.
- A provisional order required a $200,000 college fund for their son and $125,000 early distributions to each spouse, credited against final property distribution.
- Final decree valued Husband’s weekly gross income for child support via income averaging (over 2005–2007, excluding 2004 and 2008), and divided the estate 64% to Wife and 36% to Husband.
- Disputes at issue included whether income averaging was proper, what assets belong in the marital pot, and the proper valuation of several assets (e.g., E*Trade account, cash on hand, coin collection, IRAs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of income averaging for child support | Trabucco argues averaging imputes potential income and is erroneous. | Trabucco contends averaging reflects uncertain self-employment income and is appropriate. | Not clearly erroneous; permissible for self-employed, volatile income. |
| Inclusion of Son's college account in marital pot | Account funded with marital assets; provisional order not a final distribution, so included. | Public policy favors amicable settlement and the provisional order should limit inclusion. | Properly included; provisional order did not survive final decree; one-pot theory applies. |
| Inclusion of $250,000 early distributions in marital pot | Distributions were already made; should not be double counted. | Lack of specific account sources warrants inclusion; some funds likely from undisclosed assets. | Not clear error; need further inquiry on potential double-counting; remanded on IRA-related issue. |
| Characterization of specific bank/IRA accounts in the marital estate | Certain accounts (Account #0887, Wells Fargo IRAs 1941 and 5137) were marital assets. | Some accounts opened post-filing or may have been consolidated; potential double counting. | Account #0887 supported as marital asset; IRA 1941 funded with marital assets; IRA 5137 may have double-counting and requires remand. |
| Valuation of specific assets (E*Trade, cash on hand, coin collection) | Value dates and amounts should reflect post-filing changes; evidence supports higher values. | Court erred in valuation date or failed to explain valuations; requests recalculation. | E*Trade and cash on hand held within discretion; coin collection requires remand for detailed valuation explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Young, 891 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2008) (child support guideline standard; presumptively valid unless clearly erroneous)
- Scott v. Scott, 668 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (definition of weekly gross income for child support purposes)
- Kondamuri v. Kondamuri, 852 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (imputation of income in child support for underemployment)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007) (limits imputation of income for incarcerated parent; focus on actual income/assets)
- Bower v. Bower, 697 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (use of income averaging for self-employed earnings; volatility considerations)
- Lloyd v. Lloyd, 755 N.E.2d 1165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (commentary supporting income averaging for self-employed obligors)
- Reese v. Reese, 671 N.E.2d 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (valuation date chosen to reflect pendency changes; control over business)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (trial court valuation date discretion between filing and final hearing)
- Knotts v. Knotts, 693 N.E.2d 962 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (acknowledges discretion in valuation dates; possible injustice from date)
- Nornes v. Nornes, 884 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (provisional order not incorporated into final decree; divide remainder)
- Erb v. Erb, 815 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (special findings must enable meaningful appellate review; calculation transparency)