Court Opinion

ID: 9722029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:14:52.132379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:30.105259
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The instant litigation concerns a property right (ie., wages) which accrued during the parties' marriage; upon marital dissolution, all marital property is to be equitably divided pursuant to IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-11(b). The majority allows Mullins to unilaterally circumvent the clear objective of I.C. 81-1-11.5-11(b): property acquired as a result of the efforts expended by the parties during the marital relationship should be divided equitably upon marital dissolution.
Mullins was employed by Continental Can Company during the parties' marriage; the employees brought suit against Continental during the parties' marriage. The suit sought to recover wages due employees who had been laid off.
In class actions, eligible class members may initially elect to execute a Request for Exclusion from the Class, but later opt for inclusion. Onee Mullins had received a favorable marital property settlement, he could opt for inclusion within the class of employees and pocket the proceeds ($47,500.00).
The majority states that Mullins' interest in the lawsuit was "speculative and contingent" because he did not become a member of the Continental Can class during the marriage. However, his right to collect full wages and to participate in the suit accrued during the marriage; he merely delayed the exercise of his rights.
A spouse may not selectively determine that some marital assets are to be included within the marital pot and others are not. Huber v. Huber (1992), Ind.App., 586 N.E.2d 887, 889, trans. denied. Likewise, a spouse should be unable to selectively change the character of an asset, rendering it "speculative" by his own action. Mullins should not be permitted to manipulate his assets in such a manner as to deprive his former spouse of her rightful share.