Court Opinion

ID: 9717153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:59:13.399599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.661481
License: Public Domain

MATTINGLY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur fully in issues 1, 2 and 4. I concur in result on issue 3. I agree that the trial court did not err in ordering an unequal division of the marital estate. However, I am concerned that Wife’s eligibility for Medicaid might have influenced the property division as well as the trial court’s decision not to award maintenance payments to Wife.
The trial court noted in its findings of fact that Wife had been rejected for Medicaid benefits because she had received temporary maintenance from Husband, and it further noted that if, after the dissolution, Wife “does not receive direct maintenance payments from [Husband] ... she will qualify for Medicaid. The court finds that [Wife] would be best served by qualifying for Medicaid benefits for her future health care and custodial costs.”
To the extent that the unequal division of the marital property was influenced by Wife’s Medicaid status, that was error. I believe the reasoning we articulated in Lowes, 650 N.E.2d at 1176 is as applicable to marital property division as it is to decisions whether to award maintenance. I would remand for a re-examination by the trial court of the division of the marital property to ensure that Wife’s Medicaid eligibility was not a factor in that division.