Court Opinion

ID: 9719985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:12:03.473988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.044581
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Buchanan, J.
I concur in Judge White’s Opinion and only wish to stress the vitality of the appellate principle that judgments of trial courts should not be reversed unless an abuse of discretion is adequately demonstrated.
*105One of the most quoted, and helpful, definitions of abuse and discretion was written by Judge Shake in McFarlan v. Fowler Bank City City Trust Company (1938), 214 Ind. 10, 12 N.E.2d 752:
“An abuse of discretion is an erroneous conclusion and judgment, one clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” (emphasis supplied) See also, DuFour v. DuFour (1971), 149 Ind. App. 404, 273 N.E.2d 102 (Dissenting Opinion); Shaw v. Shaw (1973), [159] Ind. App. [33], 304 N.E.2d 536; Ferguson v. Ferguson (1955), 125 Ind. App. 596, 125 N.E.2d. 816.
Also a trial court is admonished to render a decision affecting the property rights of the parties as “an exercise of official conscience, not arbitrarily, wilfully, or passionately exercised, but based upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case with regard to what is right and equitable under the applicable law and to the end of a just result.” Boshonig v. Boshonig (1971), 148 Ind. App. 496 at 499, 267 N.E.2d 555. See also, Buckner v. Buckner (1958), 128 Ind. App. 654, 152 N.E.2d 97.
As Judge White ably indicates, there is no rational basis apparent in this record to sustain such a disproportionate division of property. See, Shula v. Shula (1956), 235 Ind. 210, 132 N.E.2d 612.
Our holding is thus consistent with our understanding of what constitutes an abuse of discretion in cases involving a division of property or alimony. Shula V. Shula, supra; Bahre v. Bahre (1962), 133 Ind. App. 567, 181 N.E.2d 639; Ferguson v. Ferguson, supra; Temme v. Temme (1937), 103 Ind. App. 569, 9 N.E.2d 111.