Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 1 of 11

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not 

binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value 

or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

I N T H E

Court of Appeals of Indiana

Ping Ye,

Appellant-Petitioner

v.

Richard Pickens,

Appellee-Respondent

February 19, 2024

Court of Appeals Case No.

23A-DN-698

Appeal from the Lake Circuit Court

The Honorable Marissa J. McDermott, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

45C01-2010-DN-000702

Memorandum Decision by Judge Felix

Judges Bailey and May concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 2 of 11

Felix, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Ping Ye (“Wife”) filed a petition (the “Petition”) to dissolve her marriage with 

Richard Pickens (“Husband”). The trial court granted the Petition and divided 

the marital property. Wife presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as 

follows: whether the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the 

marital assets. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[3] Husband and Wife were married in 2004, and lived together in Dyer, Indiana.

During their entire marriage, Husband worked for Northeast Railroad 

Commuter Service in Chicago, and Wife did not work outside the home. On

October 28, 2020, Wife filed the Petition.

[4] During their marriage, both Husband and Wife incurred significant debt. Both 

parties took out credit cards and loans in their individual names, and they 

purchased a condo in China that was placed in Wife’s name and used by Wife’s 

family. The trial court determined the condo had a fair market value of 

$200,000 with $30,000 still owed on the mortgage. Multiple times during the 

marriage, Wife took six-month-long trips to stay at the China condo while 

Husband stayed in Indiana and covered her expenses. Although the property 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 3 of 11

was purchased in Wife’s name, Wife has since, without Husband’s approval, 

or, even knowledge, transferred title to her family in China. 

[5] On December 1, 2020, the trial court entered a provisional order setting forth 

responsibilities for the parties during the pendency of the Petition. The trial 

court ordered Husband to pay (1) the minimum monthly payments on all of 

Wife’s incurred debts, (2) a portion of Wife’s provisional attorney’s fees, and (3)

$165 per week in temporary spousal support. 

[6] During the pendency of the Petition, Wife’s conduct prolonged proceedings

while increasing Husband’s expenses. For instance, Wife failed to attend two 

scheduled mediation sessions, for which Husband was required to pay. 

Throughout the proceedings, Wife hired three different attorneys, and all three 

withdrew their representation. Wife paid for these attorneys with credit cards, 

and, pursuant to the trial court’s provisional order, Husband was required to 

make the payments on these cards. 

[7] Prior to the final hearing scheduled for October 7, 2022, Wife filed an 

Emergency Motion to Continue based upon the recent retention of her third 

attorney. The trial court denied this motion because Wife was “afforded 11 

months to obtain new counsel” after her second attorney withdrew.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 19. On October 4, 2022, Wife filed a Motion for an

Interpreter despite “Wife’s prior two years of participating fully in English 

language proceedings.” Id. The trial court granted the motion in part, allowing 

Wife to provide an interpreter at her own expense. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 4 of 11

[8] The final hearing took place over two days on October 7, 2022, and December 

2, 2022. On November 21, 2022, Wife’s third attorney filed a Motion to 

Withdraw based upon an altercation between Wife and the attorney’s staff. On 

December 2, 2022, the trial court held an emergency hearing on the motion

immediately prior to resumption of the final hearing; the trial court granted the 

attorney’s Motion to Withdraw, finding that the circumstances were of Wife’s 

own doing. After the third attorney’s withdrawal, Wife told the trial court that 

she could proceed that day, and she finished the final hearing pro se. 

[9] On February 22, 2023, the trial court issued the Final Decree on the Dissolution 

of Marriage. The decree provided in relevant part:

16. The Court finds that there is a disparity in the parties [sic] 

earning ability, with Husband substantially more capable of

earning income than Wife.

17. The Court also finds, however, that Wife’s conduct during 

the marriage significantly dissipated the value of the marital 

estate. Both parties testified to the purchase of real estate, a 

condominium, located in China, where Wife’s family lives. . . . 

Husband testified to taking on significant debt in order to

purchase and renovate the property which Wife’s family now

enjoys and where Wife is known to have spent a great deal of

time over the years since the purchase. Wife testifies that, 

contrary to Husband’s belief and intent, the property in China

has been transferred to certain unnamed members of her family

and that she holds no legal title to it at this time. Evidence 

presented shows a current fair market value of approximately 

$200,000.00 in U.S. currency, with a mortgage or other

encumbrance of approximately $30,000.00.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 5 of 11

* * *

19. The Court declines to include the property itself in the

marital estate as there is no reliable way to ascertain whether or

not Wife holds title to same; moreover, it is immaterial, as any 

order of the Court awarding the property in China to Husband or 

its sale would likely be void under Chinese law. The Court does, 

however, find that Wife’s conduct regarding the property in

China constitutes a diminution of the marital estate and a

dissipation of assets, in that testimony shows that the burden of

the debt incurred to purchase it ultimately led to the loss of

Husband’s real estate in the United States in 2008, and her 

conduct in transferring the property to family . . . reduces that 

value of the marital estate-directly by approximately $170,000.00.

* * *

21. The Court finds that the marital estate had a date of filing

value of $14,119.03 and that this amount is a mere 7.6% of what

the value would be were it not for Wife’s actions, which the

Court finds were a willful fraud perpetuated on Husband.

22. Having considered all of the statutory factors set forth in 

§31-15-7-5, the Court FINDS that a deviation from an equal 

division in this case would be just and reasonable.

23. Based on all of the statutory factors, the Court ORDERS a 

deviation in the division of the marital estate with Husband 

receiving one hundred percent (100%) of the value and Wife

receiving zero percent (0%).

24. Despite this, the Court recognizes the disparity in income 

earning potential between the parties and declines to order 

Wife to take on any of the debts incurred in Husband’s name 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 6 of 11

or to make any equalizing payments from her own bank 

accounts.

25. Additionally, the Court limits this finding to the value at 

time of filing of the parties [sic] assets and debts, the value of 

Husband’s pensions shall be assessed separately with Wife to 

receive 50% of the coverture value of those pensions in which 

Husband had a vested interest at the time of filing, including

his Tier II Railroad Retirement benefits. Husband’s “manager 

pension,” which testimony shows was not vested at the time 

of filing, shall not be so divided.

* * *

27. Possession of the leased marital residence is awarded to

Husband, as wife has testified that she is unable to make the

necessary payments to maintain said lease. Wife shall have 30

days to vacate and find a new residence.

28. The parties shall keep the vehicles in their own possession 

and each shall execute any necessary documents required to 

transfer ownership or title to the party in possession of said 

vehicle.

* * *

34. Having heard the testimony of both Husband and Wife, the

Court finds that during the intervening two years Wife at no

point obtained gainful employment or attempted to do so, citing

unarticulated health issues. At no point did she seek additional 

training or certifications to prepare for the eventual finalization

of her divorce.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 7 of 11

35. The Court will award a small measure of rehabilitative

maintenance from Husband to Wife in order that she have some

means to reestablish herself, but the amount and duration that

the Court deems appropriate is determined after considering that

Wife has been receiving maintenance, with no child care [sic] 

responsibilities or other demands on her energy for 26 months

prior to the issuance of this Order.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 22–27 (emphasis in original). 

[10] The trial court ordered Husband to pay spousal maintenance in the amount of 

$1,000 a month for the next four months or prepay the $4,000 at any time in 

that four-month timeframe. The trial court also denied Wife’s requests that (1) 

Husband maintain health insurance on her behalf, (2) Husband keep Wife as 

beneficiary on his life insurance policy, (3) Husband be ordered to continue 

making minimum payments on Wife’s debts, and (4) Husband be ordered to 

pay rent at her new residence. 

[11] On March 28, 2023, Wife filed a Notice of Appeal with this court. Three days 

later, Wife filed a Motion to Dismiss her appeal because she did not know if she 

wanted to pursue an appeal at that time; we denied this motion on April 5, 

2023. That same day, Wife’s original appellate counsel filed a Motion to 

Withdraw with this court because Wife did not think counsel was honest with 

her and counsel did not “believe that the attorney-client relationship [was] a 

workable relationship” at that time. Mot. Withdraw at 1. On April 11, 2023, 

we granted this Motion to Withdraw, and Wife proceeded with new appellate 

counsel. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 8 of 11

Discussion and Decision

[12] Wife argues that the trial court erred in its division of marital assets. We review 

the division of marital assets for abuse of discretion. Roetter v. Roetter, 182 

N.E.3d 221, 225 (Ind. 2022) (citing Luttrell v. Luttrell, 994 N.E.2d 298, 304–05 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013)). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision stands 

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts or reasonable inferences, if it 

misinterprets the law, or if it overlooks evidence of applicable statutory factors.”

Id. (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 875 N.E.2d 320, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). Here, 

the trial court entered findings sua sponte; thus, we ask “whether the evidence 

supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment,” and we 

will set aside the judgment only when it is clearly erroneous. Steele-Giri v. Steele, 

51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016) (citing In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 

2014)). 

[13] To divide marital property, the trial court must (1) identify the property in the 

marital estate and (2) distribute the property in a just and reasonable manner.

Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 226–27 (citing O’Connell v. O’Connell, 889 N.E.2d 1, 10–

11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). Marital property consists of “both assets and 

liabilities and encompasses ‘all marital property,’ whether acquired by a spouse 

before the marriage or during the marriage or procured by the parties jointly.” 

Id. at 227 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Eads v. Eads, 114 N.E.3d 868, 873 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2018)). Distribution of marital property begins with a 

presumption that equal division is the just and reasonable result. Ind. Code § 

31-15-7-5. “[T]his presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 9 of 11

relevant evidence . . . that an equal division would not be just and reasonable.” 

Id. 

[14] When a party attempts to rebut the just and reasonable presumption, the trial 

court considers evidence regarding the following factors:

(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024 Page 10 of 11

I.C. § 31-15-7-5(1)–(5). These statutory factors are not the only relevant factors

available for consideration, and “no single factor controls the division of 

property.” Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 227 (citing McBride v. McBride, 427 N.E.2d 

1148, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)). However, when ordering an unequal division 

of marital assets, the trial court must consider all the statutory factors, id.

(quoting Wallace v. Wallace, 714 N.E.2d 774, 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)), and 

“state its reasons for deviating from the presumption of an equal division in its 

findings and judgment,” Eads, 114 N.E.3d at 874 (citing Barton v. Barton, 47 

N.E.3d 368, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)). “The party challenging the ‘trial court’s 

division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption that the court 

considered and complied with the applicable statute.’” Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 

225 (quoting Wanner v. Hutchcroft, 888 N.E.2d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). 

[15] Wife claims the trial court erred in awarding Husband all the non-retirement

assets in the marital estate; however, her argument lacks substance and is 

merely a recitation of the facts. Wife does not challenge any of the trial court’s 

findings, so we accept them as true. See R.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 203 

N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686, 

687 (Ind. 1992)). Wife does not point to a single case that suggests the trial 

court erred in its division of assets. Therefore, she does not provide the cogent 

reasoning required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), so she waives this 

argument for our review. See Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023). 

[16] Waiver notwithstanding, we do not find the trial court erred in its division of 

the marital estate. Here, the trial court clearly demonstrated its consideration of 
Page 11 of 11

the statutory factors and identified its reasons for deviating from an equal 

division. The court considered how, when, and why the parties acquired 

property. The trial court acknowledged the difference in the earning capacities 

of the parties and accommodated that finding. It is clear that one of the biggest 

factors in the court’s decision was the court’s belief that Wife dissipated the vast 

majority of the marital estate when she transferred title of real estate to her 

family living in China. The dissipation of the marital estate reduced its value by 

more than 90%. Wife acknowledges that she was awarded $4,000 in 

maintenance but claims this amount was not enough. However, Wife delayed 

proceedings at the expense of the marital estate, and, during that time, she 

failed to find work or seek training that could increase her earning capacity.

Thus, the trial court’s division of the non-retirement assets adequately reflects

consideration of the statutory factors. We conclude that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in its division of marital assets. 

[17] Affirmed.

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Samantha M. Joslyn 

Rensselaer, Indiana 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

Robert A. Plantz 

Merrillville, Indiana 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024