Court Opinion

ID: 9529344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:59.900396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:45.096037
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that the trial court sufficiently set forth its reasoning for deviating from the presumption of an equal division of the marital property, I respectfully dissent.
The trial court is authorized by Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5 to deviate from the presumptive equal division if it states its reasons for the deviation. Chase v. Chase, 690 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). One of these reasons is "[tlhe extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse ... through inheritance or gift." 1.C. § 31-15-7-5. In its order, the trial court explained that Husband's severance pay and portions of his inheritance had been used for the benefit of the family as a whole. However, Wife's inheritance had been used for Wife's children from a previous marriage only. Thus, Wife had already enjoyed the benefit of her own inheritance as well as Husband's inheritance. Moreover, Husband had kept the account separate for many years. This is sufficient to rebut the presumption of an equal division. See Keller v. Keller, 639 N.E.2d 372 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. I therefore vote to affirm the trial court in its finding that what remained of Husband's inheritance was Husband's alone.
ORDER
This Court having heretofore handed down its opinion in this appeal on January 28, 2005, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication.
The Appellee, by counsel, having thereafter filed his Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision, alleging that the majority opinion in the Not for Publication Memorandum Decision criticizes existing Indiana law and therefore, the Appellee alleges that said opinion should be published and prays this Court for an order that the Memorandum Decision be published.
The Court having examined said Motion to Publish, having reviewed its decision and being duly advised, now finds that the same should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellee's Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision is GRANTED.
All Panel Judges Concur.