Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 4

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Alan D. Wilson

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Katherine J. Noel

Jacob D. Winkler

Noel Law

Kokomo, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Karen Criswell,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

Kenneth Criswell,

Appellee-Respondent.

February 27, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

34A05-1604-DR-924

Appeal from the Howard Superior 

Court

The Honorable Brant J. Parry, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

34D02-1404-DR-293

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Karen Criswell (“Wife”) appeals the dissolution court’s decree of dissolution of 

her marriage to Kenneth Criswell (“Husband”). Wife raises a single issue on 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 4

appeal, and Husband raises a single issue on cross-appeal. We address those 

issues as follows:

1. Whether the dissolution court erred when it found a 1962 

Chevrolet Corvette (“the Corvette”) to be a marital asset.

2. Whether the court erred when it valued the Corvette at 

$22,000.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 9, 2014, Wife filed her petition for the dissolution of her marriage to 

Husband after nearly twenty-eight years of marriage. On January 13, 2016, the 

dissolution court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. At that hearing, 

Wife testified that the Corvette was a marital asset that she believed to be worth 

$40,000. Wife did not specify a basis for her belief that the value was an 

accurate value.

[4] Husband also testified at the hearing. According to Husband, he had traded the 

Corvette to a friend, to whom Husband owed $22,000, in exchange for having 

that debt forgiven. Despite trading the vehicle, however, Husband 

acknowledged that he kept possession of it, continued to pay insurance on it, 

and took it, along with Wife, to car shows.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 4

[5] After the hearing, the court entered its dissolution decree. Among other things, 

the court found the Corvette to be a marital asset worth $22,000. This appeal 

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[6] Husband argues on appeal that the dissolution court erred when it found the 

Corvette to be a marital asset, and Wife contends that the court erred when it 

valued the Corvette at $22,000. The parties’ arguments follow the court’s 

decree of dissolution, in which the court entered findings of fact and

conclusions thereon after an evidentiary hearing. In such appeals, “the court on 

appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and 

due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the 

credibility of the witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). In reviewing findings of 

fact and conclusions thereon, an appellate court applies “a two-tiered standard 

of review by first determining whether the evidence supports the findings and 

then whether the findings support the judgment.” Weigel v. Weigel, 24 N.E.3d 

1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In evaluating whether the findings support the 

judgment, we will reverse “only upon a showing of ‘clear error’—that which 

leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 

Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 4

Issue One: Whether the Corvette is a Marital Asset

[7] We first address Husband’s argument on cross-appeal that the dissolution court 

erred when it found the Corvette to be a marital asset. We hold that the 

dissolution court’s finding on this issue is supported by the evidence. The 

undisputed evidence shows that Husband and Wife had possession of the 

Corvette, paid insurance on it, and took it to car shows. That evidence is 

sufficient to support the dissolution court’s finding that the Corvette was a 

marital asset, and Husband’s argument to the contrary on appeal simply 

requests this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

Issue Two: The Value of the Corvette

[8] We thus turn to Wife’s issue on appeal, namely, whether the dissolution court 

erred when it valued the Corvette at $22,000 rather than $40,000. We again 

hold that the dissolution court’s finding is supported by the evidence. Although 

Wife testified that she believed the Corvette to have been worth $40,000, 

Husband testified that he thought the Corvette had a fair market value of 

$22,000. Accordingly, the dissolution court’s finding that the Corvette had a 

value of $22,000 is supported by the evidence, and Wife’s argument on appeal, 

like Husband’s argument on cross-appeal, seeks to have this court reweigh the 

evidence. We will not. We affirm the judgment of the dissolution court.

[9] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.