Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 1 of 19

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

Edward A. McGlone

Terre Haute, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Caitlin M. Miller

Hunt, Hassler, Lorenz & Kondras, LLP

Terre Haute, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Billy L. Haymaker,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Victoria L. Haymaker,

Appellee-Petitioner.

July 29, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

61A01-1411-DR-495

Appeal from the Parke Circuit Court

The Honorable Samuel A. Swaim,

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 61C01-1304-

DR-152

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Appellant-Respondent Billy Haymaker (“Husband”) and Appellee-Petitioner 

Victoria Haymaker (“Wife”) were married in 1980 and separated in 2013 upon 

Wife’s filing of a dissolution petition. Between 1997 and 2000, Wife’s mother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 2 of 19

had conveyed sixty-five acres of farmland to Wife and Wife’s two siblings as 

joint tenants with rights of survivorship (“the Farm”). Wife had also opened a 

bank account with Old National Bank (“the Account”) into which she 

deposited her share of revenue from the Farm, which is operated by her brother. 

[2] As part of the dissolution proceeding, the marital residence was appraised by 

three persons, two of whom appraised the property at $190,000 and one at 

$230,000. Wife and Husband also submitted appraisals of certain heavy 

equipment of Husband’s with Wife’s appraisal of its value being significantly 

higher than that of Husband’s. After a hearing, the trial court determined, inter 

alia, that (1) Wife’s gift of her portion of the Farm and the Account warranted 

an uneven division of the marital estate because those assets remained in her 

name and were not comingled with Husband’s assets, (2) the value of the 

marital residence was $230,000, and (3) the value of Husband’s heavy 

equipment was the mean of all of the appraisals that were performed. 

[3] Husband contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in concluding 

that the Farm and the Account warranted a deviation from the presumptive 

equal split of the marital estate, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in 

valuing Wife’s interest in the Farm, (3) the trial court abused its discretion 

valuing the marital residence, and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in 

valuing Husband’s heavy equipment. We conclude that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in, essentially, assigning the Farm to Wife but did abuse its 

discretion in assigning the Account to her. We further conclude the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 3 of 19

did not abuse its discretion in valuing the marital estate or Husband’s heavy 

equipment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. 

Facts and Procedural History

[4] Husband and Wife were married on May 17, 1980. From 1997 to 2000, Wife’s 

mother executed four warrantee deeds for the “Farm,” a 325-acre property held 

by Wife, Wife’s brother Joseph Fessant, and Wife’s sister Mary Beth Walls as 

joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Husband was aware of the Farm but 

never requested that it be retitled to add his name. At some point, Wife opened 

the Account, into which she deposited her share of the Farm’s income. The 

Account was used for whatever family needs arose, “[w]hether it be furniture or 

something the children needed.” Tr. p. 220. The income from the Farm was 

reported on the joint tax returns filed by the parties. 

[5] On April 15, 2013, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to 

Husband. On May 21, the trial court held a hearing on the dissolution petition. 

At the hearing, the evidence included three appraisals of the marital residence 

and four appraisals of certain heavy equipment of Husband’s, three performed 

on his behalf and one on Wife’s. Brian Conley appraised the Farm at $325,000, 

but did not take into account that it was currently a joint tenancy with rights of 

survivorship. Carl Miller, III, testified that it would be difficult to market a onethird interest in a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. Miller further 

testified that the interests in the Farm would have to be separated in order to be 

marketable, which could be accomplished by a partition suit. Wife and Fessant 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 4 of 19

both testified that they wished to give their children their interest in the Farm 

and intended to convert title to the Farm to a tenancy in common. As of the 

date of the hearing, however, Wife and Walls had not spoken in seventeen 

years. 

[6] On July 3, 2014, the trial court issued its dissolution decree, which provides, in 

part, as follows: 

DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

This cause came on for final hearing the 21st day of May, 

2014. Petitioner, Victoria L. Haymaker (hereinafter “Wife”), 

appeared in person and by counsel, Teri M. Lorenz. 

Respondent, Billy L. Haymaker (hereinafter “Husband”), 

appeared in person and by counsel, Edward A. McGlone. 

Witnesses were sworn and evidence was heard. The Court, 

having taken this matter under advisement, now enters the 

following Decree of Dissolution, dissolving the parties’ marriage 

and dividing the assets and debts of the marriage.

1. The parties were married on May 17, 1980. The parties 

separated on April 5, 2013.

....

6. Wife is an employee of the Vigo County School 

Corporation and earned $30,786 in 2013. Husband is an 

employee of Novelis and earned $119,046 in 2013. 

Therefore, Husband’s annual income is nearly four (4) 

times more than Wife’s annual income. However, 

Husband is close to retirement.

....

11. During the marriage, Wife received a gift of a 1/3 interest 

in 65 acres of farm real estate, in Vigo County, IN, from 

her mother, following the death of her father in a farm 

accident. The co-owners of said farm are Wife’s brother 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 5 of 19

and sister. The real estate is titled to these three (3) 

siblings as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Wife is 

3 years older than her brother, Joseph Fessant, and 15 

years older than her sister, Mary Beth Walls. Mortality 

tables indicate Wife may survive her brother because 

females live longer than males, however, such tables 

would also indicate that Mary Beth Walls will survive both 

her siblings and as the youngest surviving joint tenant with 

right of survivorship, would end up owning the fees simple 

in the 65 acres. The alternative to the last surviving sibling 

owning the fee simple in the real estate would be for the 

three (3) owners to agree to divide the real estate, in kind; 

to agree to sell the real estate and divide the proceeds 

among them; or one or more of the siblings filing a lawsuit 

to partition the real estate.

12. The fact that Wife and her younger sister have not spoken 

to each other for years indicates that co-operation to divide 

or sell the real estate will be unlikely and having to file a 

partition action will be likely.

13. The fee simple interest in the 65 acre farm was appraised 

by Brian Conley during the pendency of this matter for 

$325,000.

14. The costs to Wife of partitioning her interest in the 65 acre 

farm, according to Carl N. (“Chip”) Miller, III, are:

a. Litigation costs including attorney fees: $20,000

b. Real estate appraisal fee: $2,000

c. Realtor’s commission at 6% $6,500

Total: $28,500

These expenses would, therefore, reduce the value of 

Wife’s fractional 1/3 interest in the real estate from 

$108,333 to $79,833. In any event, the value of this asset 

is somewhat irrelevant. Regardless of the value, it is 

Wife’s asset alone. She inherited it and Husband has 

contributed nothing toward this asset. The Court would 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 6 of 19

deviate from the 50/50 presumption in favor of the Wife 

by any amount placed as the value of this asset. 

However, its value and income do somewhat 

counterbalance Husband’s superior income earning 

ability.

15. During the marriage Wife maintained Old National Bank 

Account #0302, into which she deposited her net farm 

income after payment of farm expenses such as Indiana 

real property taxes.

....

19. The parties built the home at 10660 S. Rukes Road and 

invested approximately $350,000 in its construction.

20. There were four (4) appraisals on the marital residence. 

Wife had the real estate appraised by Johnny Swalls 

($190,000) and by Chip Miller ($230,000). Both of these 

appraisals were market-analysis appraisals. Wife also had 

a market assessment performed by Becki Busiere of Remax 

Real Estate who inspected the real estate, inside and out, 

and determined the fair market value of the real estate to 

be $230,000 to $235,000. Husband had the real estate 

appraised by Cindy Steiner at $190,000; however, Ms. 

Steiner looked at the home from the road, only, and did 

not view the interior of the home. Ms. Steiner’s appraisal 

was a “lender’s appraisal”.

21. Ms. Steiner did not inspect the interior of the residence 

until after preparation of her appraisal report and 

understated the square footage of the real estate by 258 

square feet and determined a value per square foot of the 

real estate at $114.46. Chip Miller opined, that had 

Steiner used the correct square footage, her value of the 

real estate would have increased by $29,530, bringing her 

value to $219,530. Ms. Steiner acknowledged at the final 

hearing that she had underestimated the square footage of 

the residence but testified that her correction of that error 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 7 of 19

would not increase her opinion of the value of the real 

estate.

22. Appraiser, Johnny Swalls adjusted his Comparable #1 as 

if it had a larger basement than the parties= [sic] basement, 

when, in fact, it had no basement. Correcting this error 

increased the value of Comparable #1 by $25,460. Swalls 

corrected this error in his appraisal after it was brought to 

his attention by Chip Miller; however he did not increase 

the value of the real estate as a result of this correction.

23. Neither Steiner nor Swalls seemed to make any adjustment 

on their comparables for the fact that the basement in the 

parties’ home is fully finished and includes two (2) 

bedrooms and a full bath. Chip Miller believed that the 

value of this improvement, as compared to an unfinished 

basement, was $29,000. Had Swalls or Steiner adjusted 

their values, accordingly, for the fully finished basement at 

the marital residence, which provides substantial 

additional living space, their values of the real estate 

would have exceeded the value of the real estate 

determined by Chip Miller.

24. Chip Miller testified that shortly before the parties’ final 

hearing, a home comparable to and in close proximity to 

the parties’ Parke County real estate had sold for $250,000. 

He testified that had this comparable been available at the 

time of his appraisal, he would have relied heavily on it. 

He testified that this recent comparable confirmed his 

value of the parties’ real estate at $230,000.

25. The Court determines that the value of the residence, at 

separation, was $230,000. This is a beautiful home for 

which the parties should be proud. It would appear to the 

Court that $230,000 is actually a very reasonable price for 

such a home.

26. The date of separation balance of the Wells Fargo 

mortgage against the real estate was $127,806, leaving 

equity in the real estate of $82,194.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 8 of 19

27. Each party shall be confirmed in the continued ownership 

of all household goods, furnishings, personal effects, tools 

and heavy equipment in his/her possession, same having 

been allocated between the parties during the pendency of 

this matter.

28. There were also four (4) appraisals of some part or all of 

the parties’ personal property.

a. Wife commissioned the appraisal by Johnny Swalls 

of all household goods and furnishings, tools, 

equipment and heavy machinery. The value of such 

property as determined by Swalls was $48,331.50. 

Swalls appraised the heavy equipment at $30,100.

b. Husband commissioned three other appraisals of 

some part or all of his heavy equipment, only. The 

value of some part or all of the heavy equipment 

determined by Husband’s appraisers were:

David Hayes: $11,825

Jim Maier (“Diamond”) $13,800

Wright Implement $11,659

29. The Court finds Wife’s approach in averaging the 2 to 4 

appraised values of each piece of heavy equipment to 

determine its mean value to be reasonable. Therefore, the 

adjusted value of the parties’ personal property is $35,899, 

of which Wife received property valued at $5,835 and 

Husband received property valued at $30,004.

30. The Court accepts Husband’s argument that the 50/50 

presumption should be rebutted because only 33/35ths of 

his Novelis Pension Plan was accrued during the marriage. 

The Court will award Husband with 53% of this Plan.

31. The Court finds that the assets which comprise the marital 

estate and the value thereof, at separation, are as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 9 of 19

Asset Titling FMV Debt

Marital 

Pot 

Value

Parties’ Pre-Marital 

Gifted Assets

....

Wife’s gifted 1/3 

interest as joint tenants 

with right of 

survivorship with W’s 

siblings in 65 acres of 

farmland in Sanford 

(Vigo County), 

Indiana. Appraised by 

Brian Connelly for 

$325,000 reduced by 

costs of partition 

action. $325,000 ÷ 3 = 

$108,333 - $28,500 = 

$79,833 

w 79,833 79,833

ONB Savings (Farm 

Account) #0302 w 3,540 3,540

....

Additional Assets 

Acquired by Joint 

Effort of Parties

Real Estate

Marital residence as 

10660 S. Rukes Road, 

Rosedale (Parke 

County), Indiana, 

including 6 acres; 

subject to Wells Fargo 

mortgage #0359 

($127,806). Value per 

market analysis 

appraisal of Carl N. 

Miller, III.

jt 230,000 127,806 102,194

Personal Property
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 10 of 19

Household goods and 

furnishings; value per 

appraisal by Johnny 

Swalls with heavy 

equipment valued at 

mean value 

determined by Swalls 

and 3 other appraisers 

of such equipment.

jt 35,899 35,899

....

Total Estate 2,138,827 127,806 2,011,021

32. The presumption of an equal division of assets between the 

parties under I.C. 31-15-7-5 is rebutted and the Court 

determines that Wife is entitled to more than fifty percent 

(50%) of the marital estate because of the value of her 

gifted assets which remained in Wife’s name, alone, 

during the marriage and which were not commingled with 

Husband. Wife also argues the court should rebut the 

presumption because of Wife’s inferior earning ability and 

her inferior economic circumstances with respect to Social 

Security retirement benefits and the increased cost of her 

medical insurance. These are valid concerns, but Husband 

is close to retirement and Wife has been keeping her own 

income out of marriage for a significant amount of time. 

While this may not rise to “dissipation” it is an economic 

circumstance the Court has considered. In addition, Wife 

will end up with her acreage in Vigo County. The Court 

finds that each of the parties contributed an equal amount 

of money to the completion of the home Husband was 

building at the time of the marriage and therefore brought 

an equal value of assets into the marriage, and that neither 

party dissipated assets during the marriage. While each 

party alleged that the other party had dissipated assets, the 

parties would not have accumulated the marital estate that 

existed at separation if there had been any significant 

dissipation of assets. The Court intends to equally divide 

the estate, except the premarital assets and gifts. The 

additional amount awarded to Wife ($45,215.38) roughly 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 11 of 19

represents the additional amounts Wife has as a gift or 

premarital item.

....

36. Husband shall refinance the Wells Fargo mortgage secured 

by a lien against the marital residence and pay Wife her 

$51,097 equity in the real estate within 60 days of this 

Order. Wife shall quit claim to Husband her interest in the 

real estate in the context of his refinancing, under a Quit 

Claim Deed prepared by Husband’s attorney. Husband 

shall continue to pay and hold Wife harmless against all 

expenses associated with the former marital residence, 

pending his refinancing.

Appellant’s App. pp. 18-23, 25, 28. 

[7] On August 1, Husband filed a motion to correct error. On October 22, 2014, 

the trial court issued its order to correct error, revaluing some assets that are not 

at issue in this appeal and redividing the marital estate accordingly. 

Discussion and Decision

[8] When we review a case in which the trial court has made 

requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, we will not set 

aside the court’s judgment unless it is clearly erroneous. Rose 

Acre Farms, Inc. v. Greemann Real Estate (1987), Ind. App., 516 

N.E.2d 1095, 1097, trans. denied. A judgment is clearly erroneous 

when unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions 

thereon. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the record 

lacks any facts or reasonable inferences to support them. 

Donavan v. Ivy Knoll Apartments Partnership (1989), Ind. App., 537 

N.E.2d 47, 50. In determining whether the findings and 

judgment are clearly erroneous, we will neither reweigh the 

evidence nor judge witness credibility, but we will consider only 

the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which support 

the judgment. Agrarian Grain Co. v. Meeker (1988), Ind. App., 526 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 12 of 19

N.E.2d 1189, 1191. A judgment is contrary to law if it is 

contrary to the trial court’s special findings. Id.

DeHaan v. DeHaan, 572 N.E.2d 1315, 1320 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. 

I. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in 

Dividing the Marital Estate Unequally

[9] Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5 provides as follows:

The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital 

property between the parties is just and reasonable. However, this 

presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant 

evidence, including evidence concerning the following factors, that 

an equal division would not be just and reasonable:

(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

(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.

[10] “Subject to the statutory presumption that an equal distribution of marital 

property is just and reasonable, the disposition of marital assets is committed to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 13 of 19

the sound discretion of the trial court.” Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503, 

512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 

An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or the 

reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn 

therefrom. An abuse of discretion also occurs when the trial 

court misinterprets the law or disregards evidence of factors listed 

in the controlling statute. The presumption that a dissolution 

court correctly followed the law and made all the proper 

considerations in crafting its property distribution is one of the 

strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on 

appeal. Thus, we will reverse a property distribution only if there 

is no rational basis for the award and, although the circumstances 

may have justified a different property distribution, we may not 

substitute our judgment for that of the dissolution court. 

Id. (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 

[11] Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in departing from the 

statutory presumption of an equal division of marital assets. Specifically, 

Husband contends that Wife failed to establish that her interest in the Farm and 

the Account were sufficient to rebut the presumption of an equal split. 

[12] We reject Husband’s argument so far as the Farm is concerned. As previously 

mentioned, the presumption of equal division may be rebutted by evidence 

regarding the extent to which property was acquired through inheritance or gift. 

See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(2)(B). Here, Wife presented evidence that her interest 

in the Farm was deeded to her and her alone and no attempt was ever made to 

retitle Wife’s interest to add Husband, despite his full knowledge of the Farm. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 14 of 19

Fessant testified that he, Wife, and Walls’s great-grandfather owned the Farm 

originally and that Fessant’s goal was to have his grandchildren have an interest 

in the Farm. Wife testified that she wanted the Farm “for all [her] kids” and 

that her parents’ main objective for the Farm was that it stay in the family. Tr. 

p. 159. In light of the evidence that no attempt was made to incorporate the 

Farm into the marital estate and that Wife and Wife’s family intended it to 

remain the “family farm,” we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in departing from the presumption of an equal division of the marital

estate.1 

[13] As for the Account, we reach a different conclusion. 31-15-7-5(4) provides that, 

in deciding whether to depart from the presumption of equal division of the 

marital estate, the trial court may consider “[t]he conduct of the parties during 

the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.” Wife 

testified that Farm income was reported on the parties’ joint tax return each 

year and that the income was used “not just for [her], for whatever was 

necessary[,]” including “furniture or something the children needed.” Tr. p. 

220. Wife also testified that Husband had access to the Account. By Wife’s 

admission, the funds in the Account were commingled with the marital estate 

and used for marital expenses. So, while the trial court did not abuse its 

 

1

 Husband also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the value of Wife’s share in the Farm 

was to be reduced by the cost of a partition suit when it was unclear that such a suit would be necessary. 

Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assigning the interest in the Farm 

entirely to Wife, however, we not address arguments concerning its specific value. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 15 of 19

discretion in concluding that Wife’s receipt of the Farm itself justified an 

unequal division of the marital estate, we conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion by essentially taking the Account out of the marital estate. 

II. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in 

Assigning Value to Certain Marital Assets

A. The Marital Residence

[14] Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in assigning a value 

of $230,000 to the marital residence. Wife had two appraisals performed on the 

residence, by Swalls and Miller, who valued it at $190,000 and $230,000, 

respectively. Husband had Cindy Steiner appraise the property and she valued 

it at $190,000. In addition, Wife put into evidence an opinion from Becky 

Busiere that the residence was worth from $220,000-$235,000, although Busiere 

specifically indicated that her opinion letter was “not an appraisal and is not 

intended for that use.” Ex. 7. Only Miller and Steiner testified at the final 

dissolution hearing. 

[15] Husband argues that Miller’s upward adjustment for the residence’s finished 

basement, $48,000 as opposed to Swalls’s $19,000 adjustment and Steiner’s 

$20,000 adjustment, was excessive. Miller justified his adjustment by noting 

that approximately 1400 square feet of the residence’s basement was finished 

“just like living area” with “two bedrooms, a family room, a bathroom, [and] it 

walks out to the back.” Tr. p. 30. Miller, while stopping short of saying that 

Swalls failed to take into account the fact that the basement was finished, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 16 of 19

testified that Swalls’s adjustment for the basement reflected that “his 

interpretation of the contributory value of a finished basement is not the same 

as mine.” Tr. p. 35. As for Steiner, she testified that she did an exterior-only 

inspection of the residence, and while she looked into some of the windows, she 

was unable to look into the basement. In the end, Miller testified that, in 

addition to his in-person inspection of the residence, he consulted “public 

records and MLS data, talked to market participants. The normal scope of 

work that you would do in any appraisal.” Tr. p. 24. Husbands points to many 

other reasons why we should reject Swalls’s appraisal in favor of one of the 

lower ones. The trial court, however, was in the best position to evaluate the 

expertise and credibility of the witnesses and evaluate their documentary 

submissions, and the trial court chose to accept Miller’s assessment. Husband’s 

argument in this regard is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the 

evidence, which we will not do. See DeHaan, 572 N.E.2d 1315, 1320. 

B. Husband’s Heavy Equipment

[16] Husband also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in valuing 

several items of heavy equipment that were ultimately assigned to him. Wife 

commissioned an appraisal by Swalls of all of the parties’ personal property, 

while Husband had certain pieces of heavy equipment appraised by David 

Hayes of Hayes Auctioneering, Wright Implement, and Jim Maier of Diamond 

Equipment. The various appraisals of the items at issue are summarized below:

Item Swalls Hayes Wright Maier
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 17 of 19

John Deere 

tractor

$9500 $4900 $5259 $5500

King Kutter 

finish mower

$900 $450 $500 $500

Eighteen-foot 

trailer

$1200 $800 $800

Homemade 

Ford bed 

trailer

$125 $25

Case backhoe $8500 $2500 $2500 $3500

Cub Cadet 

mower

$750 $225 $150 $500

Gehl skid 

steer loader

$8000 $2500 $2500 $2500

Ford tractor $1000 $300 $500 $500

John Deere 

five-foot 

blade

$125 $125 $250

[17] As laid out previously, the trial court summarized the results of the various 

appraisals of Husband’s heavy equipment as follows:

a. Wife commissioned the appraisal by Johnny Swalls 

of all household goods and furnishings, tools, 

equipment and heavy machinery. The value of such 

property as determined by Swalls was $48,331.50. 

Swalls appraised the heavy equipment at $30,100.

b. Husband commissioned three other appraisals of 

some part or all of his heavy equipment, only. The 

value of some part or all of the heavy equipment 

determined by Husband’s appraisers were:

David Hayes: $11,825

Jim Maier (“Diamond”) $13,800

Wright Implement $11,659
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 18 of 19

Appellant’s App. pp. 21-22. The trial court determined the final value for each 

piece of heavy equipment by accepting the average values of the two to four 

appraisals that were made for each item at issue, as submitted by Wife: 

Item Average 

appraised 

value

John Deere 

tractor

$67532

King Kutter 

finish mower

$6333

Eighteen-foot 

trailer

$800

Homemade 

Ford bed 

trailer

$75

Case backhoe $4250

Cub Cadet 

mower

$406

Gehl skid 

steer loader

$3875

Ford tractor $575

John Deere 

five-foot 

blade

$167

[18] Husband’s argument is essentially that Swalls’s appraisal of his heavy 

equipment in particular—and all of the parties’ personal property in general—

should be discounted entirely because Swalls’s appraisals of his heavy 

equipment were substantially higher than those of Hayes, Maier, and Wright 

Implement. Husband, however, points to no flaws in Swalls’s methodology, no 

 

2

 The average of the four appraisals for the John Deere tractor is actually $6289.75. 

3

 The average of the four appraisals for the King Kutter finish mower is actually $587.50. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 61A01-1411-DR-495 | July 29, 2015 Page 19 of 19

reason to question his qualifications or objectivity, or any other reason to reject 

his appraisal, for that matter. As with Husband’s previous argument, this 

argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we 

will not do. See DeHaan, 572 N.E.2d 1315, 1320. Husband has failed to 

establish that the trial court’s valuation of his heavy equipment constitutes an 

abuse of discretion. 

Conclusion

[19] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deviating from 

the presumption of an equal division of the marital estate and, in effect, 

excluding Wife’s interest in the Farm from the marital estate. We conclude, 

however, that the trial court abused its discretion in effectively excluding the 

Account from the marital estate. Finally, we conclude that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in valuing the marital residence or Husband’s heavy 

equipment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for recalculation of 

the final distribution of the marital estate, including the Account, which was 

valued at $3540 at the time of separation. 

[20] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and we 

remand with instructions. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Kirsch, J., concur.