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: JASON A. CHILDERS Hulse Lacey Hardacre Austin & Shine, P.C. Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM BYER, JR. Byer & Byer Anderson, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CAROLYN S. RIGGS, Appellant-Respondent, vs. LARRY L. RIGGS, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 48A02-0512-CV-1190

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Dennis D. Carroll, Judge Cause No. 48D01-0409-DR-951

December 22, 2006 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge

Carolyn Riggs appeals the valuation, inclusion, and distribution of the marital assets pursuant to her divorce from Larry Riggs. Carolyn argues the motor home should have been valued at the purchase price or at her estimated depreciated value, instead of Larry's lower estimated depreciated value. As the trial court valued the motor home within the range of the estimated values, we find no abuse of discretion in the valuation of that asset. Carolyn also argues an Edward Jones Account was improperly attributed to her because the account was a gift to her daughter and she does not have access to it. However, the record indicates she and her daughter hold the account jointly. Because we will not reweigh the evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in the inclusion of that asset in the marital estate. Carolyn and Larry's martial estate was distributed equally between them. Carolyn challenges the equal distribution of the marital property. Carolyn argues she presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of an equal distribution pursuant to Ind. Code

Download Carolyn S. Riggs v. Larry L. Riggs.pdf

Indiana Law