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.

FILED
Sep 11 2009, 8:59 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

APPELLANT PRO SE: JOHN D. GEERLIGS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: HEATHER WYSONG ZAIGER Cohen Garelick & Glazier, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOHN D. GEERLIGS, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. SUSAN M. HOFFMAN, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A05-0812-CV-688

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Richard A. Mann, Temporary Judge Cause No. 49D07-0311-DR-2068

September 11, 2009

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge

John D. Geerligs appeals the trial court's decree of dissolution. He argues that the trial court denied him due process by conducting the dissolution hearing without his presence. Geerligs specifically contends that he was unable to attend the hearing because the courtroom doors were locked. However, we do not reach the issues raised by Geerligs. Instead, we sua sponte raise the following issue: whether the trial court's decree of dissolution is supported by sufficient evidence. We reverse and remand. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Geerligs and Susan M. Hoffman were married on June 4, 1983. No children were born during the marriage. On November 19, 2003, Geerligs filed a petition for legal separation. Roughly one year later, Geerligs filed a verified petition for dissolution of marriage in which he alleged that the marriage was irretrievably broken. After numerous delays and a failed attempt at mediation, the trial court held a final dissolution hearing on October 20, 2008. Geerligs was not present at the hearing, nor did he have counsel present to represent him. Hoffman and her counsel did attend the hearing. Hoffman's testimony during the hearing, in total, was as follows: Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Can you please state your name for the record? Susan M. Geerligs. And what is your date of marriage, Miss Geerligs? 6/4/83. And did your husband, John Geerligs, file this Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on November 19, 2003? Yes, he did. And at the time that he filed the petition had you been a resident of the State of Indiana for more than six months? Yes, ma'am.

2

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

And had you been a resident of Marion County for more than three months? Yes. And do you have any children as a result of your marriage? No. Do you own any real property with your husband that you wish for the Court to divide? No. Was the home that you owned at 4455 Central Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46205, foreclosed upon? Yes, it was. And was your husband responsible for making the payments associated with that real property? Yes, he was. Are you requesting that your husband be solely responsible for any deficiency associated with the foreclosure? Yes, I am. Have you and your husband divided any personal property that you own? Yes. Are you requesting that you be awarded any jewelry, clothing and personal effects that are currently in your possession? Yes. Do you own an automobile? Yes, I do. And what kind of automobile do you own? Plymouth Breeze. Are you requesting that the Court award the Plymouth Breeze to you? Yes. Are you requesting that the Court award any automobile in your husband's possession to him? His car. Are you requesting that any deficiency associated with his vehicle be given to him? Yes. And the same with your Plymouth Breeze? Correct. Do you have any bank accounts? No. Are you requesting that any bank accounts that either you or your husband own be awarded to each of you individually? Yes.
3

Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.

A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.

And are you aware of whether your husband owns any retirement accounts? Disability retirement with the post office. Are you requesting that if there's any retirement account that can be divided with the post office that you be awarded 50 percent of that? Yes, I am. And are you requesting that your husband be awarded sole possession of any life insurance policies of which he is an owner? Yes. With regard to debts, are you requesting that your husband be solely liable for any property--any taxes associated with any property that he [sic] awarded? Correct. And are you requesting that he be obligated to pay any debts that he incurred after November [1]9, 2003? Yes. And this would be including credit card debts? Yes. Are you requesting that the Court order you to be responsible for the same types of debts? For my own debts, yes. Okay. Have you incurred any attorney's fees as a result of this action? Yes. Are you requesting that the Court order your husband to pay $4,036 in attorney's fees? Yes, I am. Are you requesting that he be ordered to pay that directly to your counsel? Yes. Are you requesting that your maiden name of Susan M. Hoffman be restored to you? Yes, I am.

Tr. at 6-9. Hoffman did not introduce any exhibits during the hearing. That same day, the trial court issued a decree of dissolution of marriage in which it entered findings and conclusions. In the decree, the trial court found that the marriage was irretrievably broken and dissolved the marriage. The trial court divided the marital

4

property pursuant to Hoffman's requests and ordered Geerligs to pay Hoffman's attorney fees, which totaled $4,036. Geerligs now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION The dispositive issue is whether the trial court's decree of dissolution is supported by sufficient evidence. Where, as here, the trial court enters findings of fact and

conclusions thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52, we apply a two-tiered standard of review. Tompa v. Tompa, 867 N.E.2d 158, 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether findings support the judgment. Id. "The trial court's findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, if the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them." Id. "A judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and we will only consider the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. "We review conclusions of law de novo." Id. In his petition for dissolution of marriage, Geerligs alleged that there was an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. A court must grant a dissolution of marriage once an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage is found to exist. Ind. Code

Download John D. Geerligs v. Susan M. Hoffman.pdf

Indiana Law