Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 1 of 6

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

Heather M. Schuh-Ogle

Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & 

Guthrie, P.C.

Columbus, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Christopher C.T. Stephen

Stephen Legal Group

Greensburg, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dustin L. Conley,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

Candice M. Conley n/k/a 

Candice M. Koors,

Appellee-Petitioner.

July 28, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

16A05-1701-DR-81

Appeal from the Decatur Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable Timothy Day, Judge.

Trial Court Cause No. 

16C01-1508-DR-378

Shepard, Senior Judge

[1] Dustin L. Conley appeals the trial court’s decree dissolving his marriage with 

Candice M. Conley. We affirm.

[2] The parties married in 2013. They had no children together and separated in 

2015. On August 12, 2015, Candice filed a petition for legal separation, a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6

motion for temporary possession of premises, and a motion for apportionment 

of monthly liabilities. On July 19, 2016, she filed a petition for dissolution. 

Meanwhile, Dustin was incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction 

for an offense not identified in the record.

[3] The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. On September 19, 2016, 

Dustin, by counsel, moved for continuance and moved to be transported from 

the Department of Correction for the hearing. The court rescheduled the final 

hearing but denied the motion to transport.

[4] At the evidentiary hearing on November 29, 2016, Dustin was represented by 

counsel and by his mother, to whom he had granted a power of attorney. She 

testified on his behalf. Neither party asked the court for findings of fact and 

conclusions. On December 13, 2016, the court issued a decree of dissolution. 

Among other provisions, the court awarded the marital home to Candice, 

ordered that each party would keep his or her own retirement accounts, and 

distributed the parties’ vehicles and personal property.

[5] Dustin first claims the court violated his rights under the Indiana Constitution 

by holding the hearing without his participation, either in person or by 

telephone. Article one, section twelve of the Indiana Constitution provides, in 

relevant part: “All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to 

him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of 

law.” Implicit in the right to bring or defend against a civil action is the right to 

present one’s claim in court. Sabo v. Sabo, 812 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6

The right to present one’s claim does not always amount to a right to be present 

in court. A prisoner who is involved in a civil lawsuit has no general right to a 

transport order. Id.

[6] Dustin asked the trial court to order him to be brought to court for the 

evidentiary hearing, but pursuant to precedent the court did not violate his right 

to due course of law by denying his request. Further, Dustin did not ask the 

court to allow him to appear telephonically. The court cannot be faulted for 

failing to grant relief a party did not request. See Hooker v. Hooker, 15 N.E.3d 

1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (no violation in holding a hearing without the

incarcerated defendant where defendant did not ask to participate). The court 

did not deprive Dustin of due course of law.

[7] Next, Dustin claims the court erred by failing to identify the values it assigned 

to every marital asset. We review the court’s valuation of a marital asset for an 

abuse of discretion. Weigel v. Weigel, 24 N.E.3d 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). 

There is no abuse of discretion where sufficient evidence and reasonable 

inferences support the court’s valuation. Id. It is an abuse of discretion for the 

court to distribute property without apprising itself of the value of the property. 

In re Marriage of Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). The parties bear 

the burden of demonstrating the value of marital assets. Campbell v. Campbell, 

993 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. A party who fails to 

introduce evidence as to the specific value of marital property is estopped from 

appealing the distribution of the property on the ground of absence of evidence. 

Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6

[8] Neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions. Thus, the court was 

required to assess the value of each marital asset, but it was not obligated to 

explain its valuations in detail. Further, Dustin submitted a list of the property 

he wanted, including half of the house, but he did not assign a value to any of 

the marital assets. Instead, Dustin’s mother presented values for the parties’ 

purebred dog, an Acura automobile, the parties’ equity in the marital home, 

and Dustin’s retirement account. Dustin is thus estopped from challenging the 

valuation of the other marital assets. In addition, at the end of the hearing the 

court orally explained how it intended to distribute the assets, explaining that 

the court was trying to be fair. It is clear from this discussion that the court 

considered the parties’ evidence about the values of the assets. The court did 

not abuse its discretion. See Dean v. Dean, 439 N.E.2d 1378 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1982) (no abuse of discretion in valuing property where court did not explicitly 

state value of each marital asset).

[9] Finally, Dustin argues the trial court inappropriately deviated from an equal 

division of marital property without providing an adequate explanation. Courts 

are required by statute to presume that an equal division of the marital estate “is 

just and reasonable.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 (1997). The party challenging a 

trial court’s division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption 

that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute. Harris v. 

Harris, 42 N.E.3d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). This presumption is one of the 

strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal. Id. The 

division of marital assets is within the trial court’s discretion, and we will 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 5 of 6

reverse only for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Perez, 7 N.E.3d 1009 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial 

court’s disposition of the marital property, and we may not reweigh the 

evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Id.

[10] It is not apparent that the court deviated from an equal division. To the 

contrary, the court indicated in its discussion at the evidentiary hearing, “We’re 

not dealing with exact numbers, so I’m going to do the best I can here.” Tr. p. 

38. For example, the court ordered Candice to make the payments on one of 

the parties’ cars until Dustin was released from incarceration, at which point 

she would give the car to him and he would be solely responsible for the 

payments. The court stated it would balance Candice’s obligation to make car 

payments by awarding her the parties’ dog, a relatively expensive purebred. In 

addition, the court awarded Candice the equity in the marital home but ordered 

her to pay the debt owed on the parties’ credit card.

[11] If anything, the estate was divided in favor of Dustin. The parties each kept 

their own retirement accounts, and Dustin’s was worth nearly twice Candice’s 

($59,000 versus $30,000). The court awarded Candice the marital home, in 

which the parties had, according to the court, only “a few thousand dollars in 

equity.” Tr. p. 40. Further, Candice had been paying the mortgage and other 

expenses by herself starting in July 2016 when Dustin was incarcerated, and the 

court assigned her sole responsibility for the mortgage, taxes, and upkeep going 

forward. We find no abuse of discretion in the division of the marital estate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 6 of 6

[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.