Court Opinion

ID: 9730336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:09:13.869857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.855394
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
When the trial court determined the net value of all of the property of the parties to be $157,713, and then divided that amount exactly in half and ordered the husband to pay $78,856 to the wife over a three year period, the court made a property settlement-a division of the property of the parties, and did not award "maintenance". Calling a division of the property "maintenance" does not make it so. The division here has all of the attributes of property settlement and none of the attributes of maintenance. See Coster v. Coster (1983), Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 397.
Because I believe it clear that the award in this case is property division and not maintenance, we should simply so hold. There is no need to remand for further findings, and I dissent to the majority opinion to the extent it orders remand. In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.