Court Opinion

ID: 9529345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:59.904145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:45.097693
License: Public Domain

PETITION ON REHEARING
ROBB, Judge.
The nearly forty-year marriage of Adeline Margaret Hatten ("Wife") and Emerson Richard Hatten ("Husband") was dissolved and the trial court ordered a deviation from an equal distribution of the marital property in that Husband was awarded an account at Merrill Lynch. We held that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside this account to Husband. Hatten v. Hatten, No. 09A02-0404-CV-314, 825 N.E.2d 791 (Ind.Ct.App., Jan. 28, 2005). Husband now petitions for rehearing, alleging a factual error in our opinion leading to a misunderstanding of the basis on which the trial court's award was made. We grant the petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of addressing Husband's contention, but reaffirm our opinion in all respects..
In our opinion, we stated that "[the trial court awarded to Husband the entirety of a Merrill Lynch account funded with money Husband inherited from his mother." Op. at 792. We also stated later in the opinion that "[in 1988, Husband received an inheritance of approximately $55,000 when his mother passed away, which was *798used to fund a Merrill Lynch account." Id. Husband points out testimony that the Husband inherited the account directly from his mother's estate, rather than inheriting money that was later placed in a Merrill Lynch account as our opinion would imply. We agree that the testimony supports Husband's assertion, and to the extent the wording of our opinion implies otherwise, we correct that phrasing. However, the nature of Husband's inheritance has no effect on our ultimate result. As stated in our original opinion, the trial court found that the account was separate and distinct from the marital property. However, Husband voluntarily added Wife's name to the account and they enjoyed the mutual benefit of funds withdrawn from the account for ordinary living expenses (a finding also made by the trial court). Under these cireumstances, the account was clearly commingled with the marital property. We therefore reaffirm our original holding that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the account aside to Husband.
KIRSCH, C.J., concurs.
BAKER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.