Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ELDEN E. STOOPS, JR. Law Offices of Elden E. Stoops, Jr. North Manchester, Indiana

FILED
Oct 06 2011, 8:36 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CHRISTOPHER D. KEHLER Kehler Law Firm, PC Warsaw, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ADAM L. SHULL, Appellant-Respondent, vs. MARI E. SHULL, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 43A03-1103-DR-104

APPEAL FROM THE KOSCIUSKO CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Rex L. Reed, Judge Cause No. 43C01-1010-DR-542

October 6, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge

Case Summary and Issue Adam Shull ("Husband") appeals the trial court's distribution of marital property in the dissolution of his marriage with Mari Shull ("Wife"). Husband raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in equally distributing property inherited by Husband. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History In October of 1999, Husband's grandmother passed away and Husband inherited interests in three parcels of farm land totaling approximately 80 acres. One of the parcels had a home. Two of the parcels were transferred to Husband and his brother as tenants in common, and one was transferred to Husband, his brother, and his father as tenants in common. In 2000, Husband married Wife, who had not yet graduated from high school. Although it was not the reason for their marriage, inheriting a home and potentially incomeproducing farm land enabled Husband and Wife to marry sooner than they would have otherwise. During the course of their marriage, Husband and Wife lived primarily in the house Husband inherited from his grandmother, and they had two children together. Both worked and received income during their marriage, and, although these points are not undisputed or clear, evidence suggests they received some amount of income from the farm land and invested an unknown amount of money into the house by making improvements.

2

In 2010, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and in January of 2011, the trial court entered its judgment dissolving the marriage and made the following pertinent findings of fact and conclusions of law: 2. The parties were married on June 10, 2000. *** 4. There were two (2) children born to the marriage, . . . . *** 8. Based upon the stipulation and agreement of the parties, the Court finds and concludes that it is in the best interest of the minor children that their legal custody be shared by [Wife] and [Husband], with primary physical custody of the minor children being awarded to [Wife]. *** 10. Pursuant to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines . . ., the Court finds and concludes as follows: [Husband] has weekly gross income of $437.00 . . . . [Wife] has weekly gross income of $460.00 . . . . *** 15. That a dispute exists as to the disposition of interests in real estate titled in the name of [Husband], which interest [Husband] contends should be set aside to him as it represents an inheritance from his deceased grandmother. The Court notes that the entitlement to the interest in real estate accrued upon the death of [Husband's] grandmother on October 28, 1999, although the actual physical possession of the interest in real estate was held in trust and not distributed to [Husband] until some time thereafter. To be noted is that the ownership of the interest in real estate was held at the time [Wife] and [Husband] were married, that they have been married [sic] in excess of ten (10) years and have two (2) dependent minor children. Further, it does appear that both [Wife] and [Husband] contributed equally to the maintenance of the household, and accordingly, the interest in the three parcels of real estate hereinafter described is deemed a marital asset. *** 19. Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-5 mandates this Court to presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. The Court finds that an equal division of the property is appropriate . . . .

3

Appendix of Appellee at 6-11.1 Husband filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. Husband now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review The distribution of marital assets is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. England v. England, 865 N.E.2d 644, 648 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. We will not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. Id. Even if the circumstances may have justified a different distribution, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Id. Reversal is merited only where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court. Castaneda v. Castaneda, 615 N.E.2d 467, 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). II. Property Distribution Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that all property is subject to division in an action for dissolution of marriage. Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5 provides a rebuttable presumption of equal division of marital property unless a party presents relevant evidence demonstrating "that an equal division would not be just and reasonable." The statute further provides the following five factors to be considered in making this determination: (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing. (2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse: (A) before the marriage; or
We thank the appellee for filing an appendix but remind the appellant that pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 49(A), an appellant "shall" file an appendix with its brief.
1

4

(B) through inheritance or gift. (3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell in the family residence for such periods as the court considers just to the spouse having custody of any children. (4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property. (5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to: (A) a final division of property; and (B) a final determination of the property rights of the parties. Ind. Code

Download Adam L. Shull v. Mari E. Shull.pdf

Indiana Law