Court Opinion

ID: 9533992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:36:06.174428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:16.467939
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting, in part and concurring in part.
I concur with the Majority except for the treatment of the savings plan. The Majority has engaged in sophistry when it separates out the contributions of Allman from those of his employer as vested. There is absolutely no testimony or exhibits in the record which authorize the separation suggested by the Majority. “His money” and the employer’s money are inseparable.. To separate Randall Allman’s contribution out of the fund before the entire plan is vested ignores the law and the conditions of the plan. The Majority’s *460separation is an equitable illusion unsupported by the evidence and the law.
None of the conditions regarding the savings plan was introduced as evidence except through the testimony of Allman. He testified that his employer could not take the funds away from him after the funds had become vested. The funds would not become vested until January 1,1993 according to All-man’s testimony. This implies that he has no right to “his money” until the fund is vested. Therefore, the savings plan should not have been included in the marital estate. However, if the trial court finds that Allman had a right to withdraw from the savings plan, the entire fund may be made a part of the marital estate. There is no half in and half out compromise as suggested by the Majority. It is the vestment or right to the entire funds in the saving plan that is the crucial question for the court to decide on remand. See IC § 31-1-11.5-11(a); Staller v. Staller, 570 N.E.2d 1328 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).