### MEMORANDUM DECISION 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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT David W. Stone IV Stone Law Office & Legal Research Anderson, Indiana A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEE Zachary J. Stock Carmel, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Richard Hermida , Appellant

- Petitioner,

v. 

### Cynthia Hermida , Appellee

- Respondent. M ay 12, 2016 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 33A05

- 1509

- DR

- 1586 Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane, Judge. Cause No. 33C02

- 1409

- DR

- 209



### Sharpnack , Senior Judge


## Statement of the Case

[1] Richard Hermida appeals the trial court’s valuation of a bank account upon the dissolution of his marriage to Cynthia Hermida. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05

- 1509

- DR

- 158 6 | M a y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 1 of 5

## Issue

[2] Richard presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the trial court erred in valuing one of the bank account s of the marriage. 

## Facts and Procedural History

[3] Richard and Cynthia married on May 17, 1982. During the mar riage, Richard hand led the parties’ finances. One of the accounts in existence during the marriage was a Signature Series Gold account at Citizens State Bank. On September 24, 20 14, the parties separated. A final hear ing was held on August 26, 2015. Th e trial court issue d its decree of dissolution on September 3, 2015, assigning a value to, among other things, the Signature Series Gold account and dividing the marital estate. This appeal ensued. 

## Discussion and Decision

[4] The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial c ourt erred w hen it assigned a value of $53, 657 to the Signature Series Gold account. W e review a trial court’s valuation of an asset in a marriage dissolution for an abuse of discretion. Quillen v. Quillen , 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). An abuse of di scretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. There is no abuse of discretion where sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences support the trial court’s valuation. Bingley v. Bingley , 93 5 N.E.2d 152, 154 (Ind. 2010). Upon review of a trial court’ s valuation of pro perty in a dissolution, we neither reweigh the evidence nor

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05

- 1509

- DR

- 158 6 | M a y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 2 of 5judge the credibility of witnesses

. Crider v. Crider , 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1056 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied

.

[5] Here, Richard challenges the $53,657 value the trial court assigned to the Signature Series Gold account. Richard contends that the value assigned to this account by the trial court is improper because it is $23,000 more than the act ual account balance at the time of separation. During Richard’s direct examination, there was no mention of this account. O n cross - examination, he was asked by Cynthia’s counsel if $53,657 sounded accurate as the balance for the account. Richard respond ed that it “might” be the balance, that it seemed high, and that he could not say for sure. Tr. p. 25. Cynthia’s counsel then showed Richard two bank statements for the account dated July 23, 2014 and September 23, 2014 , which were later admitted into ev idence without objection by Richard. The July 23 statement shows an account balance of $53,657.14, and the September 23 statement shows an account balance of $30,279.61. Upon questioning by Cynthia’s counsel, Richard testified that prior to filing for di vorce, he withdrew $23,000 from the account. On re

- direct, Richard stated that he used the money to purchase a car for a third party female in August 2014. During her direct examination, Cynthia testified that Exhibit J was a spreadsheet showing the mari tal assets, including bank accounts and their balances. Exhibit J includes the Signature Series Gold account with a balance of $53,657. Cynthia’s counsel moved to admit Exhibit J, and Richard affirmatively stated he had no objection to the exhibit.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05

- 1509

- DR

- 158 6 | M a y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 3 of 5[6] “ The burden of proving the value of marital assets is, and should be, on the parties to the dissolution. ” Houchens v. Boschert , 758 N.E.2d 585, 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied

. There is no abuse of discretion where the trial court’s valuation of a marital asset is within the range of values supported by the evidence. Balicki v. Balicki , 837 N.E.2d 532, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied

. A valuation submitted by one of the parties is competent evidence of the value of property in a disso lution action and may , a lone , support the trial court’ s determination

. Crider , 15 N.E.3d at 1056. Moreover, the doctrine of invited error precludes a party from complaining on appeal about an error it prompted

. Webb v. Schleutker , 891 N.E.2d 1144, 1155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[7] In this case, Cynthia provided a n unchalleng ed value for the Signature Series Gold account

. Although Richard offered his testimony on cross

- examination that he w ithdrew $23,000 and his admission on re

- direct that he use d the money to buy a car for a third party female , he at no time made any effort to question the value of the account as shown on Exhibit J and in fact acq uiesced to Exhibit J’s admission

. Thus, any error in the value assigned to the Signature Series Gold account wa s invited by Richard, and he cannot now be heard to complain about any such error. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court abuse d its discretion in assigning the value of $53,657 to the Signature Series Gold account.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05

- 1509

- DR

- 158 6 | M a y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 4 of 5

## Conclusion

[8] For the reasons stated, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assigning the value of $53,657 to the parties’ bank account.

[9] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05

- 1509

- DR

- 158 6 | M a y 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 Page 5 of 5