Court Opinion

ID: 9740710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:40:39.101976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.893912
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the Majority Opinion because the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireumstances presented in this divorce action. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court with instructions for an equal distribution of marital assets.
Absent a valid antenuptial agreement, all assets of divorcing spouses are part of the "marital pot" and are subject to division. Huber v. Huber (1992), Ind.App., 586 N.E.2d 887, 889, trans. denied. L.C. 8B1-1-11.5-l1(c) provides for an equal division of assets in the marital pot, unless one spouse establishes by relevant evidence that an equal division would not be just and reasonable. Evidence of the existence of one of the specified factors for the court's consideration (e.g., acquisition by inheritance) does not, without more, satisfy the statutory criteria that a deviation from the presumed 50/50 split is appropriate only if an equal division would be unjust or unreasonable.
Here, the wife presented evidence that she inherited a residence 11 years before the parties' final separation. For approximately six years, the Kellers resided together in the inherited residence. Each spouse exerted efforts to maintain the home; joint funds were used to pay mortgage installments, taxes and insurance. The Kellers subsequently sold the inherited residence, deposited the proceeds into a joint checking account and purchased a second residence. Again, cach spouse exerted efforts to maintain the home; joint funds were used to pay mortgage in-. stallments, taxes and insurance. The Kellers clearly commingled all their assets and efforts; their situation was directly opposite that of spouses where inherited property has been set aside to one spouse upon dissolution. See Castaneda v. Castaneda (1993), Ind.App., 615 N.E.2d 467, 470.
The trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and cireum-stances before it. This court should reverse and remand for an equal distribution of the marital assets.