*1 STATON, J., concurs.
GARRARD, in result. concurs McMA J. OF MARRIAGE re
In NAMA, Respondent-Appellant, McManama, Figura
Gertrude Petitioner-Appellee. 3-1277A332.
No. Indiana,
Court District.
Third 8, 1979. Rоberts, Bend, George P. for re- South 12, 1979. April Rehearing Denied spondent-appellant. Swartz, Swartz, J.
Jeanne Cekanski & Bend, petitioner-appellee. HOFFMAN, Judge. Respondent-appellant Patrick J. McMana- appeal following brings grant- ma Figura petitioner-appellee Gertrude McManama’s Petition Dissolution Marriage. appeal The sole issue raised on erred whether the trial court in furtherance of the Gertrude erty settlement.
The facts most favorable were married on 25, 1967. Gertrude worked as a Nоvember full-time teacher from During period, part- Patrick worked degree, pursuing time while his bachelor’s then time. both Patrick and full graduate degrees. pursued their infant son, Bеnd, Patrick, moved to South Steven Notre where Patrick attended as a full-time student while worked full as a school psychologist. they When moved automobile, owned Fiat сash, furnishings. and various household *2 954 $1,440 They on the “5. still owed automobile The following liabilities shall be $1,206. totaling
and had other liabilities responsibility Husband, sole and Husband shall hold the Wife August 12,1976. on parties separated claim, harmless any demand, From moved to suit based upon obliga- separation, Bend until their $14,785. 1975, tions: earned received $1,000 gift parents. as a Christmаs from her - Service $360.00 a. The Internal Revenue - $220.00 study Patrick devoted full time to the b. Notre - autoplasty $500.00 bill c. Doctor for Husband's 1976, law. In the summer of Patrick “As to outstanding obligations оther than $1,250 in earned as an assistant the Public above, those mentioned each party shall Defender’s Office. bear responsibility for satisfying separation, At the time оf their only $96 obligation incurred that party after parties brought remained of the 1, August 1976, party and the incurring with them to South Bend. Patrick retained the obligation shall hold the party оther remaining amount. Tuition and books as obligation. harmless to any such $3,200, for law school amounted to ****** paid savings was for and An additional “10. In furtherance of this property dis- tuition while the resided in two Connecticut position, in recognition and paid for after came to South Wife’s contribution as a homemak- Bend. er, as contribution, well as her provided settlement decree way of employment, to the satisfac- following disposition property: liabilities the course “3. granted ownership, The Wife is sole the marriage, and contributions possession, use and of the real estate legal toward the education of the described, commonly Alt- as East Husband, the Wife is awarded a geld, Joseph County, St. Husband, against the Indiana, as well as any equity which the amount of Three Thousand Six may exist in that ($3,600.00)Dollars, Hundred to be Wife is ordered to hold Husband paid in installments of One Hun- mortgage obliga- harmless as to the ($100.00) dred existing, per month, Dollars presently or which future, exist in may regard payment 1, 1978, first September said real estate. and subsequent payments to be “4. personal property, As to the made on the first of each month party personal is entitled to that thereafter until in full.” possession in his or her Appellant contends that decree, date of this awarding erred in part as shall be the owner of sole such of the property settlement. Relying on erty, with exception (1977), Wilcox v. Wilcox Ind.App., 365 the following Husband entitled to N.E.2d any contends that personal property, currently which is award over the value of the marital аssets possession of the Wife: represent maintenance, form some a. The Husband’s which, showing absent a physical or men- notes, effects; school books and incapacitation pursuant tal to IC 31- picture b. The form l-11.5-9(c) (1977 Burns Supp.), beyond
print; and power of the court to make. plate. c. The brass decorative Howеver, the case bar distinguisha- party “Each is ordered to execute what- ble from Wilcox. necessary ever documents that place title to the worked so proper- above.mentioned that the husband could continue ty in the owner. his education. The wife argued that the including desirability pro- a tenured University, discount- family when residеnce or at Purdue fessor value, was an asset attributa- periods ed to dwell therein for as the relationship therefore to the marital ble to the spouse dеem hav- This of dissolution. at the time children; divisible ing custody court there the ings, earnings as a marital award hearing seek to a share Supp.), assets, provides as follows: 31-1-11.5-3], thе property of reasonable by pursuant acquired final such conditions “Disposition own quired by same scribe and “In sale. ambit of the case at nor did ordering the salе either stated that determining what was no such property in spouses and to governing the sum interest for an of Patrick’s or separation by future parts to section by either after spouse Gertrude’s dividing manner, “marital of bar, thereof over to establish Patrick’s joint there must be a property. parties, as the court kind, requiring discounted future prior vested interest court there is 3(a) marriage asset. disposition of marital spouse in his or the either efforts, item evidence just assets,” and that or to [subsection $3,600rеpresents proceeds shall the same —In whether parties, to come by setting nothing by either to and reasona- (1977Burns division divide proper, or one an action marriage, just prior to of such within *3 vested in the or ac- owned in the under [1] (a) of earn- pre- pay the her the properly parties suant to tion previous $3,200on moved to South Patrick’s educational aсhievement property, property supra. fits from the trial court to include holder. ously spent cordingly, its trial sole benefit constituted a Affirmed. formulating of (e) the the the (Emphasis supplied.) tion or the court did of the property but the parties marriage. marriage An Only Patrick will derive the bene- consider property this Patrick’s which was still еducational his it dissipated earnings in the conduct of dissipation has none education marriage. education. statute, judgment not abuse can be as related to final division a Bend, Indiana, they spent property as related property law school rights See: final by or property the trial pursuits. Although of the is of their the the earning ability of its discretion. Ac- owing After Wilcox v. determination of of once held net worth. The settlement date of dissolu- a parties to education and acquisition the upon attributes be affirmed. on Patrick’s the the court could cash property; parties.” may po- disposi- parties during by previ- pur- the of of consider the ble the сourt shall
factors: CHIPMAN, desig- participating by to spouse
(a) the of each contribution nation, concurs. includ- STATON, J., with opinion. dissents spouse as of a contribution homemaker; STATON, dissenting. Judge, (b) property to which the the еxtent opinion majority I dissent. The has not spouse prior acquired misinterpreted plain inheritance and unmistak statute, gift; language of the but it has able and unmistakable lan ignored plain (c) the economic circumstances (1977), Ind.App., in Wilcoxv. Wilcox guage spouse at the effective, N.E.2d 792. is to become Judge Lybrook present, in Wilcox underscored vested interests be divided by the nothing statute trial a final “[T]here dissolution of the interpretation lends itself to the Furthermore, marriage. the rationale used is ‘property’ and therefore majority would cause endless confu- ” Yet, exactly . . divisible. . this regarding rights sion husband majority opinion attempted has what assets, and wife to mаrital since the accomplish specious reasoning with such as: limitation would be judge’s imagi- the trial formulating a property pur- “In settlement Therefore, nation. the trial judg- court’s statute, suant could ment from the husband’s (sic) properly consider once held future income to the wife is reversible er- dissipated by but the date of dissolu- ror, and its should be reversed. marriage. Although may po- Patrick’s educational achievement
property, it has none the attributes of can ... An education is Only to the holder. Patrick will Timothy ECKMAN, Appellant, Elvin derive the benefits from his education. v. property for Patrick’s sole benefit constitut- Indiana, Appellee. STATE of ed a trial court to No. 3-178A4. $3,600 сash previously spent include ” net worth. Court of majority opinion misinterprets The sub- Third District. (Burns section Ed., Supp.1977), Code which refers to the guideline conduct for the final guideline
of marital assets. The conduct
can affect the marital assets which
the husband and wife have a vested interest v. dissolution. Wilcox
Wilcox, supra. The statute excludes by the
consideration trial court by Judge Ly-
income as as noted
brook Wilcox. award of husband’s future wife is above the total value
of the marital assets and must constitute an support
award of either maintenance.
However, it clear trial court’s award was in- support
tended neither nor maintenance.
There is evidence that no
physically mentally incapacitated lacked ability support
extent
herself. majority’s
If rationale is extended cases, repeal effectively it would Legislature
intent as set forth
statute. being intent