Court Opinion

ID: 9543183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:42:58.151453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:55.292091
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
While I concur with Judge Shields' opinion, it appears to me that an alternative ground supports the determination that there was marital property subject to division.
The parties owned their residence as tenants by the entireties. The equity in the home was therefore not liable to the individual debts of either spouse. Baker v. Cailor (1933), 206 Ind. 440, 186 N.E. 769.
Thus, the trial court might reasonably determine that the equity value of the home in excess of any debts for which both husband and wife were liable did constitute a marital asset for distribution pursuant to IC 81-1-11.5-11.
Once that determination was made, then the statutory command is simply that the property be divided in a just and reasonable manner.
There has been no showing that the court abused its discretion in dividing the property as it did.
I concur.