Opinion ID: 853860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contempt Finding

Text: The trial court held Cowart in contempt for failure to abide by the Orders of this Court and for willfully and recklessly causing the real estate in this case to fall into a state of disrepair resulting in severe economic hardship to the Respondent. The trial court also found that Cowart refused to turn over the properties to White or permit the properties to be sold. These findings are supported by White's testimony that Cowart would not quitclaim the Cherry Street property to her or give her keys to that or other property. White also testified that Cowart prevented her access to the property by threatening her and calling the police when she did go on the property, denying access to the real estate agent appointed by the court to sell property, and taking down the for sale signs. Although Cowart denied much of White's testimony, the trial court credited White and we defer to the trial court's determination of the credibility of witnesses. Ind. Trial Rule 52. Cowart contends that he cannot be held in contempt because the 1996 decree did not order him to maintain the rental properties. It is true that the 1996 decree did not explicitly order Cowart to maintain the properties. However, it ordered the parties to carry out the terms of this Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and execute whatever documents are necessary to give full force and effect to the Judgment of the Court. Although the order does not specifically order Cowart to refrain from causing the properties to become devalued, that obligation is implied in the trial court's order to sell the property and divide the proceeds, which was based on the value of the property at the time of the decree. We conclude that the terms of the decree included taking reasonable steps to preserve the value of the property to adequately compensate both parties, and certainly precluded willful acts to devalue the property. Moreover, Cowart's post-decree actions created an obligation to preserve the value of the property. When Cowart prevented White from caring for the properties herself, he assumed complete control and a corresponding duty to maintain the property on her behalf. A tenant in common may be liable to his cotenant for waste. Wheeler & Another v. Me-Shing-Go-Me-Sia, 30 Ind. 402, 405 (1868). Cowart's actions amount to permissive waste which results from negligence or omission to do that which would prevent injury. See Finley v. Chain, 176 Ind.App. 66, 82, 374 N.E.2d 67, 79 (1978). In sum, Cowart's actions violated both the spirit and the letter of the dissolution decree and the trial court was within its discretion in finding Cowart in contempt.