Opinion ID: 2088851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unequal Division Findings

Text: Apart from the pension issue, Sandra urges that the trial court should be required to justify by express findings any deviation from an equal division of property. The Court of Appeals advises that, had it not been for its conclusion that the pension should be included as property subject to distribution, it would have affirmed the trial court without remanding for specific findings to explain an unequal division of marital property. (Memorandum decision, p. 6). In Luedke v. Luedke (1985), Ind., 487 N.E.2d 133, this Court vacated a decision of the Court of Appeals which would have created a rebuttable presumption favoring the equal division of marital property in dissolution cases. Perhaps it could be said that in beginning to divide property pursuant to a dissolution of marriage, one's mind ought to lean toward an equal division until facts are brought forward to indicate otherwise; but to require as a matter of law that the trial judge work from the standpoint of a rebuttable presumption of a fifty-fifty split and require any variance to be supported by particular findings of fact, is to put an artificial structure on the fact-finding process which may very well impinge the trial judge's ability to openly weigh all the facts and circumstances, giving equal regard to all of them [emphasis in original]. 487 N.E.2d at 134. In 1987, after our decision in Luedke, a rebuttable presumption was enacted by the legislature. Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-11(c) now requires trial courts to presume an equal division of marital property between the parties absent rebuttal by evidence that an equal division would not be just and reasonable. Following this legislative adoption of the equal division presumption, the Court of Appeals held that a deviation from the presumption requires a trial court to enter findings explaining its reasons for deviating from the presumption of an equal division. In re Marriage of Davidson (1989), Ind. App., 540 N.E.2d 641, 646. While asserting that the statutory presumption speaks not in terms of approximation, but rather in terms of exactitude, 540 N.E.2d at 645, the Davidson order of remand was obviously necessary primarily due to the trial court's implied award of an inheritance to the husband, resulting in a grossly disparate 70%-30% property division between the parties. While we agree that the statutory presumption must be followed absent evidence that an equal division would not be just and reasonable, express trial court findings will not be compelled for insubstantial deviations from precise mathematical equality. We therefore decline to remand to the trial court for further specific findings. Except to the extent contrary to the foregoing opinion, the remainder of the decision of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.