In Re the Marriage of Davidson

G41 relationship. The ele vantageous business action for tortious of of a cause

ments relationship with a business interference for interfer elements same as the

are the is no except that there a contract

ence with Biggs exists. a valid contract

requirement 977. (1983), App., 446 N.E.2d Ind.

v. Marsh for interference for an action

The elements "(1) a valid existence of are

with a contract (2) contract; defendant's and enforceable contract;

knowledge of the existence of inducement

(3) intentional defendant's contract; (4) of the absence of breach resulting damages

justification; wrongful inducement

from defendant's Id. at 983.

the breach. re Taylor's actions alleges

Fields working hostile oppressive and in an

sulted interfered

environment which Al relationship with Cummins.

business employed Cum- is still

though Fields

mins, voluntarily accepted a demotion. she fact of material genuine issues

There are to her contributed Taylor's actions

whether accept demotion.

decision summary judg-

Therefore, affirm the Cummins, reverse

ment in favor Taylor summary judgment in favor proceedings accord- further

remand for opinion.

ance with BAKER, J., P.J.,

CONOVER,

concur.

In re the MARRIAGE OF Carol Ann

DAVIDSON, Respondent-Appellant, Davidson,

Robert Alden

Petitioner-Appellee.

No. 15A01-8807-CV-210. Indiana, Appeals

Court of

First District.

July 1989. 9, 11, 1989. Aug.

Rehearing Denied Clarke, Jr.,. Emswiller, T.

Russell Clarke, Williams, Indianapolis, Noland & respondent-appellant. Hoffman, Lawrenceburg, for H. Harlan petitioner-appellee.

BAKER, Judge. THE OF CASE

STATEMENT Ann David- Respondent-appellant, Carol (Carol), appeals provisions son of dissolu- decree Dearborn Cireuit Court marriage petitioner dissolving her tion (Robert), Alden Davidson appellee, Robert property of marital relating to the division support and of child the determination visitation. part, part, reverse

We affirm remand. THE FACTS OF

STATEMENT July married on were and Carol Robert child, 28, marriage produced one 1966. Kim, at the time years nine old daughter, per- Robert and Carol of the dissolution. 1987, in June manently separated 644 for dissolution on the under petition filed a matter advisement. On March hearing 25, 1988, 1987. A final on

September entered an order dissolving 2 marriage dividing conducted on March and petition 3, 1988, following took which the trial court as follows: ROBERT

CAROL $87,000 (Fair $65,000 Home Market Home Value-$152,000) 7,500 Other Real Estate 10,500 Datsun 600 1986 Bronco 1980 4,000 Equipment Farm Grenada 30,422 Savings Teacher's Accounts Retirement 5,000 Checking Account 9,866 Account 5,297 Checking Account (2) 9,600 Money Market Accounts 1,568 1,568 IRA IRA 18,485 IRA 1,574 Account Union Central 14,454 Deposit 3,115 Policy Certificate of Life Insurance KEOGH Plan 283,524 Deposit 11,786

Certificate of 11,206 Prop. Other Personal $150,818 $166,7971 NET DISTRIBUTION NET DISTRIBUTION Carol, The trial court ordered the marital resi- and Kim solely to be utilized year one college dence to be sold within with the Kim's education. Carol subse- proceeds applied satisfy the sale to be quently appeal. instituted this interim, In Robert's interest it. Car- permitted ol to continue to use the ISSUES paying

residence until such sale without appeal On Carol claims trial court Similarly, the rent. undistributed house- erred in: furnishings hold furniture and with an esti- Determining I. the division of $12,700 mated value of were ordered to be marital assets. proceeds sold months and the six within equally Awarding from divided II. such to be between to Robert the Additionally, exemption Robert and Carol. the trial claim the tax for Kim on Carol, custody court of Kim to his income tax return. awarded visitation, subject to Robert's reasonable Determining III. the amount of Rob- pay per ordered to $90 Robert was support obligation. ert's child support. week in The trial court also child Determining period IV. the time medical, dental, pay ordered Robert to all. Robert's visitation. expenses by hospitalization incurred Failing V. to award Carol the full Kim his insurance and by and covered attorney amount of fees she re- hospitalization maintain insurance on Carol. quested. Finally, savings the trial court ordered a Failing require VI. Robert to take $2,000 a life account the sum of $24,000 annuity insurance in the amount of Kim to classes catechism and Sun- Robert, placed joint names of day religious services. statement, prior perceive separation, 1. Four months to their on Feb- Record at 50. From this 1, 1987, died, ruary leaving him Robert's father the trial court awarded the entire inheri- $183,765 sole heir to a estate. In the final Similarly, parties tance to Robert. both con- dividing parties' property, decree the trial cede that the inheritance was awarded to Robert formally court failed to inheritance award the therefore, purposes appeal, For in total. of this Carol, to either Robert or in its We note that having the inheritance will be treated as been fact, however, special findings of the trial court Robert, awarded to which increases his share of placed stated that it "minimum value it for $350,562. property division to purposes of consideration in this marital estate."

G45 Division. Property I: ISSUE fore the trial court. Chestnut v. Chestnut (1986), Ind.App., 499 N.E.2d 783. erred de- asserts marital assets. termining of the the division argues court deviated governed is fifty-fifty split, assets and that such of marital from a The division 31-1-11.5-il(c) pro- supported by statutory factors. by IND.CODE Specifically, as follows: she contends the trial court did vides not consider her contributions as a home- equal that an (c) presume The court shall maker, inability wage, her to earn a marital between of the division poor health. of her state of and reasonable. How- parties just ever, may presumption claim, be rebutted us to various evidence Carol directs reveals that had presents relevant evi- which been party who years. the married for 22 She had contributed dence, including concerning factors, equal acquisition following division to the of all marital assets as a just prior and reasonable: real estate to the would not be teacher and broker daughter of their but had not worked birth spouse of each The contribution past years. currently for the nine She was property, regard- acquisition unemployed the contribution was needed to less of whether and renew teaching and real estate license in order to producing. income Moreover, employed. Carol claims become (2) property The extent to which the significant problems she suffered health prior acquired by spouse each was greatly ability diminished her marriage through inheritance or the or C any capacity in or obtain work full-time gift. Robert, the other health insurance. on (3) economic circumstances of The hand, capable wage collecting a earner was disposition the spouse each at the time per income Further- a net of week. $400 effective, property is to of the become more, leaving recently his father had died desirability awarding of including the gross him sole heir to a estate valued at right to family residence or the the $183,765. complains the trial periods for such dwell in that residence utilize the inheritance as a court failed to may just to the as the court deem against portion off some of the marital set custody any children. spouse having of entitled property. She claims that she was (4) parties of the The conduct in interest in the marital home ex- to full disposi- to the marriage the as related right to share change for the waiver of her property. dissipation of their tion or Further, light in of the in the inheritance. earning ability of earnings The or receive significant assets Robert would related to a final division the inheritance, little need through his he had of property of and final determination Thus, there equity in the home. was of his parties. property rights compel sale of the home no reason of marital Traditionally, the division satisfy such. the sound assets has been matter within 31-1-11.5-ll1(c) im v. discretion of the trial court. Schnarr equal presumption that an division (1986), poses 561. Ind.App., 491 N.E.2d Schnarr may The trial court just and reasonable. However, modified is recently this has been equal only when from an division v. deviate by statute as set forth above. Euler presumption is rebutted. We observe (1989), Ind.App., 554. 537 N.E.2d Euler $150,818 may reweigh the or assess We not court awarded Carol that the trial witnesses; inheritance, credibility of we consider in assets. Absent marital property trial court awarded 53% only the evidence most favorable to While and to Carol. to Robert 47% disposition. court's Olds v. Olds close, The equal. is not statu is it division Ind.App., 531 N.E.2d 1219. Rever speaks in terms of tory presumption the trial court's sal is merited where logic clearly against in of ex decision is rather terms approximation, but magnified if inequality is facts and circumstances be effect of the actitude. included, bank account held in $240 inheritance Robert's Robert's negligible importance. name to Its property distributed to marital share of regard- We note Carol falls omission minimis and 30%. was de we will not source, by property its owned less of address it further. acquired by in- including property parties, property to the relation divi heritance, excluded from the shall not be sion, argues Carol also that the trial court assets, placed beyond or marital disposition annuity erred in its of an authority v. court's for division. Wilson aggregate bank account with an value of (1980), Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d Wilson $26,000 joint by held in names Carol and However, the trial court trans. denied. Kim. The trial court ordered Robert's any par- need not the inheritance divide placed along name to be on these accounts the fact manner. It is true that ticular Id. required Kim's and that the by inheritance acquired college solely funds be utilized for Kim's deviating is a factor to be considered education. Carol contends these assets presumption statutorily from the mandated were Kim's and the trial court exceeded its Although the trial equal an division. authority dividing designating such and property un- may court divide the marital they how were to be used. decree in this case equally, the dissolution A review of the record reveals that the straying from the indicates no reason for annuity opened by placed Carol and If presumption equality. designated Kim's name with Carol as trust opposing equal an party determines that a agent. opened The bank account was also met his or her burden under the divison has Carol, it is unclear but whether it was statute, must, findings in its the court placed Regard- in Kim or name. Carol's evidence,

judgment, on the state its based less, supplied it is evident the Carol funds presumption deviating from the reasons for present note, in both accounts. We how- equal the evidence in of an division. While showing ever that there has been no that unequal may support this case an division money in given these accounts was as a speculate property, not as to the we will gift to Kim. Absent evidence dem- which We, therefore, reasoning. re- trial court's this, certainly onstrated the trial court was the trial court di- mand this case to with authority apart proper- within its to set statutory pre- rections either to follow ty designate that it used for Kim's be equal sumption and effect an division of college money In education. the event the property, to set forth its the marital or property, in the accounts was Kim's how- doing so. rationale for ever, we observe that Carol is without standing object dispo- to to the trial court's complains also that the trial Carol sition of such. That is a matter for Kim to failing in to divide a ac court erred bank litigate separate Accordingly, in a suit. name which main count held Robert's refuse to further. address it time tained a balance of at the $240 argues hearing. final Carol that under Finally, regard proper to the 31-1-11.5-11, is division, ty Carol asserts required property to divide all the marital hospitalization court erred in its award of put to rest all of the order to coverage. insurance She claims that insur rights in the decree. companies required carry ance are ex- spouses period time general Carol's statement law limited While correct, uninsurable, argument currently is not well taken. because she is only tempo is not warranted when a trial trial court's award amounts to Reversal substantially preju rary coverage. insurance maintains court's order does not Carol Ind.App., the trial court's order must address what (1982), party. v. Dean dice a Dean steps note that the should taken her insurance 39 N.E.2d 1378. We when 4 total net marital estate, excluding the in coverage employ is terminated Robert's heritance, $317,615. she uninsura- We er and the event becomes had a value Conspicuously from Carol's ar- consider the court's failure to divide ble. absent

§47 1984, gument any authority pursuant which is citation to the Tax Re a trial supports her contention that 1984, 152(e) court is form Act of amended. § required provide for this as matter of Deleted from that section were the $600 any authority rules. Deficit Reduction law. We are not aware $1200 Act of 1984, 98-869, 428(a), Pub.L. No. 98 Stat. appellant's § so states. It is bur- 494, provision automatically 799. The new reversible error. Carol den to demonstrate exemption allocates the to the custodial regard. find no error. in this We has failed parent parent unless expressly waives exemption writing particular for the Exemption. II: Income Tax ISSUE year tax in question. 152(e). LR.C. § Thus, next asserts the trial court erred in state longer possess courts no awarding authority to claim the exemption to allocate the to the parent. non-custodial dependency exemption income tax for Kim Lorenz v. Lorenz Mich.App. Specifically, N.W.2d 770. on his income tax return. she law, that under current contends federal waiver, Absent a written the cur authority the trial court had no to allocate exemption rent federal law awards exemption to Robert. bar, parent. the custodial 'In the case at parent, Carol as the custodial was entitled Our research discloses that this is a dependent to claim Kim as a for income tax question impression of first in Indiana. purposes. suprised We are not 1, 1985, January Prior to the Federal Inter exemption trial court awarded the tax clearly nal Revenue Code authorized state Robert. testified that she had been dependency exemp allocate courts to unemployed past years for the nine parent. tion to the noncustodial ILR.C. physically unable to earn an income 152(e) section, Congress In that an § poor due to her state of health. The tax general providing rule nounced the that a exemption nothing will entitle Carol to parents child of divorced would be treated earnings since she has no to which the receiving over half of his from However, exemption applied. can be there Thus, parent. the custodial the custodial indicating is no evidence she released her parent dependent was entitled to claim the writing. claim or waived her to it exemption. child as an income tax At that Accordingly, the trial court erred in award time, however, general subject the rule was ing exemption the to Robert. exceptions. exceptions to These two were commonly rule" to as the "$600 referred Support. III: ISSUE Child and rule." Under the rule the $600 "$1200 next the trial court erred Carol contends parent exemp noncustodial could claim the determining the amount of Robert's provided support if tion he at least $600 support obligation. requested child Carol during year the and the divorce decree required pay to in child that Robert be $125 provided parent the noneustodial support; the trial court fixed Robert's child exemption. entitled to the LR.C. per support obligation at week. $90 152(e)(2)(A). The rule allowed the $1200 § parent exemption noncustodial to claim the proper sup Determination of child provided if the he or more $1200 port is the sound discretion of the within year parent and the custodial did calendar depends upon particular and trial court clearly provided establish that she by and circumstances disclosed facts parent. support more than the noneustodial in each case. Hunter v. Hunter evidence (1986), App., 152(e)(2)(B). 1278. The tri interpret Ind. 498 N.E.2d LR.C. This court § 152(e) al pre-1985 ed the version of will not be dis al court's determination § exemp lowing trial courts to allocate the trial court appeal on unless the turbed contrary parent tion to the non-custodial at the time or acted abused its discretion (1985), Ind.App., 473 Hoyle Hoyle law. v. arrange the court considered the financial support A child order consti v. N.E.2d 653. parties. Morphew ments between the of discretion when the order Morphew App., Ind. 419 N.E.2d 770. tutes an abuse hand, clearly against logic relatively and on the other had earned entered circumstances any past of the facts and be if income over the nine effect little court, including any reason teaching fore the trial years, needed to renew to be drawn therefrom. able inferences employed estate license to become real (1983), Ind.App., 445 N.E. v. Olson Olson fields, capable those and was not of work- 1386. 2d ing her health. full time due to 31-1-11.5-12(a) sets forth IND.CODE persuaded are not that the trial court We governing appropriate considerations failed to consider all of the relevant statu- support child as fol- the determination of determining tory factors the amount of lows: support obligation. After Robert's child (a) pursuant action 12. In an Sec. filed, initially the dissolution was 8(a), 3(b), 3(c) chapter, or of this section provisional support court entered a order parent may either or both the court order provide requiring per week $70 any amount parents pay reasonable support. figure Kim's This towards child, support regard without of a estimate that based Robert's similar misconduct, considering after all marital average weekly he earned an net income of including: relevant factors During hearing failed to $400. (1) the financial resources of custo- present any outlining the ex- parent; dial penses raising incurred in Kim. Fol- she (2) lowing hearing, living the trial court in- the child standard enjoyed marriage had would have obligation support creased Robert's to $90 separa- not been dissolved or had per him maintain week and ordered tion not ordered. been medical, dental, hospitalization insur- (8) physical Additionally, or mental condition of it ance on Kim. set aside a designated the child's educational money the child and substantial sum of pay college that it be utilized to for Kim's needs; and expenses. and needs the financial resources parent. noncustodial total resources must argues that determining taken into account when erroneously determination of based its of a child the amount award. This support upon factor: Robert's child one consideration is mandated statute. earnings time of the final level of at the 381-1-11.5-12(a)(1) (4). In placed hearing. claims the trial court She issue, light of our resolution of the first emphasis undue on Robert's current level however, recognize that there exists the he when it was demonstrated income probability that the allocation of greater past, income in the had earned Similarly, change. the will between resources, disregarded includ his financial disposition regard of the second issue our inheritance, ing and failed to consider ing exemption significantly impacts the tax any relevant factors. of the other parties. In consideration of these The evidence reveals circumstances, therefore, reverse and year prior hearing, Robert to the final on this remand the cause to the trial court $58,000. gross earned a income of Of permit issue in order to it to redetermine $13,000 a teacher and amount he earned as keeping in the award of child with $40,000 from real estate commissions. parties' income and resources. testified, however, earnings Robert that his dramati- from real estate sales fluctuated ISSUE IV: Visitation. average income cally and that his annual next the trial court erred Carol contends $40,000 year. per from such was less than setting period visita- the time of Robert's net average estimated that on the his He Moreover, Specifically, Kim. she asserts the he tion with per income week. was $400 allowing trial court erred visitation planned quit selling he real testified Kim is Carol, begin p.m. Friday 4:00 on because begin teaching full at estate and time. time, requiring begin visitation to in court's order at that allegedly still in school Friday p.m. is to end. at 4:00 on was an abuse of time visitation failing to set a discretion. decree, the trial court final divorce In the regarding following order visita- issued the regard complaint to Carol's With

tion: alleged regarding the trial court's failure hereby granted respondent is That the end, to set a time visitation was to Carol care, mi- custody and control of the has failed to meet burden establish Davidson, child, Lynn sub- Kimberly nor reversible error. The court ordered peti- by the ject to reasonable visitation place as set forth visitation to take under of provisions tioner as set out under Carol, however, rules. has its local court Circuit Rule 16.3 of the Dearborn Court part failed to make those local court rules a Court, required hours except that appeal. It of the record before us on is 4:00 every other weekend from should be certainly possible that Dearborn Circuit p.m. 6:00 p.m. Friday on rather than establishes, among other Court Rule 16.3 Record at 50-51. things, a termination time for visitation. 31-1-11.5-24(a) pro IND.CODE opportunity Without to examine that custody rule, properly parent granted of we cannot review Carol's vides that "a Consequently, visitation we find no error. is to reasonable claim. the child entitled argument in Carol's rights...." Nowhere visitation sched that the does she contend Attorney V: Fees. ISSUE un by the trial court was

ule established contends the trial court erred Rather, merely points she reasonable. determining attorney of fees the amount alleged deficiencies described above. hearing her. At the final to award regard a trial court's order We will review requested the trial court award her $2500 only to determine whether ing visitation fees; granted her the sum attorney for it of discretion. In there has been an abuse appeal, she claims the award On $800. (1984), Ind.App., Marriage Larkin re inadequate. 462 N.E.2d 1338. 31-1-11.5-16(a) provides agreed to that Carol We observe that: upon by par agreed as allow visitation may order The court from time to time request hearing ties. At the final party pay a reasonable amount p.m. 4:00 every from ed visitation weekend maintaining party the cost to the other Saturday. Carol Friday p.m. on to 4:00 on under this defending any proceeding or as she wished visita disagreed insofar attorneys' fees.... chapter and for every weekend. place tion to take other discretion in deter The trial court has wide Otherwise, anticipate that there she did not attorney fees to mining amount of any complying difficulty would be marriage dissolution action. award in a sched "regular" the trial court's visitation (1983), Ind.App., v. Hawblitzel Hawblitzel visitation to ule. The trial court ordered This court will disturb 447 N.E.2d 1156. Rule 16.3 designated under Court occur attorneys' only when a fees an award except with Dearborn Cireuit Court discretion is demonstrated. clear abuse of p.m. on starting modified time of 4:00 (1987), Ind.App., Marriage Lay In re fully Robert had Friday. Carol was aware 1120. The reasonableness 512 N.E.2d Friday 4:00 requested every visitation at a matter of which the attorney fee is an request Although she his pm. contested may judi being lawyer, take judge, trial weekend, no every she made for visitation v. McBride cial notice. McBride comply with a she could not mention that The trial court App., 427 N.E.2d 1148. Ind. Moreover, there was p.m. 4:00 start time. less than to an amount may choose award indicat absolutely no record evidence attorney's of an value In the full reasonable Kim school. ing time attended what trial, (1979), 168 presented light the evidence at v. Johnson services. Johnson 653, 344 N.E.2d 875. Ind.App. showing the trial there has been no place on the reasonableness of son to catechism classes took evidence which attorney requested meager during fees here is his visitation 1%»hours on Satur- virtually day mornings. if not nonexistent. Carol at best The custodial mother relied having baldly testified that after received upon right her to determine the child's separate attorneys on the from three bills religious provided upbringing under matter, request she believed dissolution 31-1-11.5-21(b). After hear- any produce failed to matter, was reasonable. She ing on the evidence court attor- reflecting what work those evidence determined that the father not re- was they or the time neys performed, expended quired to take the child to the catechism correspond- performing that and the work appeal, classes. On this court reversed they charged for such. There ing amount trial order. court's We observed ab- hourly no evidence of the rate was sent an unreasonable interference with the rates attorneys charged or whether such parent's rights, noncustodial visitation commensurate with the standard were parent's religious custodial to choose charged by attorneys in the rates other training paramount. was Under the facts community. prolonged, The trial was not case, and cireumstances of that held portion days, lasting only a of two it not an unreasonable interfer- complex or difficult. The issues were not rights ence the father's with visitation to presented primarily concerned the required transport the child to a assets, parties' the bulk of which was main- catechism class which lasted 1% tained in various bank accounts and the hours. parties' pendency The entire home. acknowledge holding We as set In dissolution lasted less than six months. forth However, in Overman.2 when the it, light the evidence before we cannot place circumstances the interests of the say trial court its discretion in abused parents custodial and non-custodial in di attorney fees. the award of another, rect conflict one it we believe Transportation Religious ISSUE VI: proper place going the burden of for Training. ward with the evidence to establish the hearing, final At the submitted basis and facts which will enable the trial proposal settlement which she written appropriate ruling upon court to make an requested require that the trial court Rob- seeking asking the party the intrusion or transport Kim to catechism classes ert to Thereafter, the accomodation. onee the In and mass when he had visitation. con- parent custodial has met the burden of request court nection with this forward, going falls the burden following finding: entered the parent prove non-custodial that the re no one The Court notes that can be quest inter would create an unreasonable religious required to attend services as a rights. ference with his visitation condition to visitation. stated, As it Carol's we have Record at 48. responsibility apprise to raise the issue and appeal, On Carol contends the trial court potential existed a that there failing require Robert to trans erred problem regarding the catechism classes. port weekly Kim to catechism classes and hearing, At the did offer into final during his visitation. In mass conducted evidence, purposes, for other a handwritten argument of her she cites Over proposal requested that wherein she Rob (1986), Ind.App., man v. Overman required Kim transport ert be to cate N.E.2d 618. chism classes mass conducted the noncustodial father dis- his visitation. Overman request, Absent puted required he to take his was not even much as directed to the whether was so jurisdictions (1979), that other view the non- Wagner 2. We note Wagner 553, v. 165 N.J.Super. parent's 918; (1979), custodial to visitation and the 398 A.2d Morris v. Morris 271 Pa. parent's right religious 19, to choose train- custodial Super. 412 A.2d 139. ing competing co-equal but interests. See

G51 testimony sonable. Robert's identified the attention, failed to sub- trial court's Carol assets, assets, some of the any evidence whatsoever sources mit and his estimates as to their value. His the trial court could base its decision. Car- ol failed to offer into evidence the most inheritance-which, reference to the all, after is a major issue in this describing trial case-were basic of information for the his comments on two occasions that Carol when or mass court the catechism classes any part should not receive of it. Certain- met, place, frequently took how the classes ly, nothing testimony there in conducted, Carol's long where each was or how which aided Robert's case. Since Robert short, wholly either lasted. failed carry his presenting failed to burden of going to meet her burden of forward with any evidence which would justify an un- the evidence on this issue. For that rea- equal the property, son, division of the trial showing there has been no that the court has no other choice but to divide the failing in court abused its discretion property equally. If on remand the trial require transport Kim to cate- Robert unequal court does state a reason for an chism classes and mass conducted division, we ap- would have reverse on his visitation. peal because such reason could not be Accordingly, for the reasons stated presented based on the evidence at the above, part, in re- this cause is affirmed trial. part, in and remanded to the trial versed majority The finding was also correct in proceedings court for not inconsistent with proving that Robert had the burden of an opinion. this equal unjust division of the inheritance was Judgment part, in in affirmed reversed and unreasonable. The statute does not part and remanded. distinguish gifts between and inheritances by party early marriage received in the RATLIFF, C.J., concurs: and those received late. There is a statu J., part; MILLER concurs in tory presumption gifts those and in part opinion. dissents with heritances equally irrespec must be divided Thus, they tive of when were received. MILLER, Judge, concurring and dissent fact that the inheritance was received sev ing. separation eral months before does not es disagree majority's I decision equal tablish that an distribution is unfair remand this case to the trial court in order unjust. had the Robert burden permit judge the trial to state his rea- showing equal the unfairness of an distri sons, evidence, deviating on the based bution, and he failed to do so. Cases cited presumption equal from the of an division by findings-McBride court its property, including of all the the inheri- (1981), Ind.App., v. N.E.2d McBride I tance. would remand with direction to 1148 and v. Osborne Osborne property, in- trial court to divide the Ind.App. 369 N.E.2d 653-which held inheritance, cluding equally. the husbands were entitled to their majority concluding is correct presented inheritances unless the evi wives equal our statute mandates an distribution they dence that had contributed to ac party unless a who asserts quisition, preservation or enhancement of greater presents interest relevant therein longer perti property-are the inherited no equal that an division would be nent because of our current statute. Carol I unjust regard, In this unreasonable. case, rested had no such burden-it testimony have examined the evidence and upon Robert. hearing. at the Robert were majority I the decision of the concur with present- only witnesses. I find no evidence on all of the other issues decided. by attempt ed I find no Robert-indeed present why an evidence-on including equal property, division of all the inheritance, unjust and unrea- would

Case Details

Case Name: In Re the Marriage of Davidson

Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals

Date Published: Jul 6, 1989

Citation: 540 N.E.2d 641

Docket Number: 15A01-8807-CV-210

Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.