Court Opinion

ID: 9941935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-19 17:03:14.896248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:27.559374
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM DECISION
       Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
       binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value
            or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

                                           IN THE

           Court of Appeals of Indiana
                                             Ping Ye,
                                                                                         FILED
                                        Appellant-Petitioner                        Feb 19 2024, 8:46 am

                                                                                         CLERK
                                                  v.                                 Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                                          and Tax Court

                                        Richard Pickens,
                                       Appellee-Respondent

                                         February 19, 2024
                                   Court of Appeals Case No.
                                         23A-DN-698
                              Appeal from the Lake Circuit Court
                        The Honorable Marissa J. McDermott, Judge
                                      Trial Court Cause No.
                                     45C01-2010-DN-000702

                         Memorandum Decision by Judge Felix
                           Judges Bailey and May concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 1 of 11
      Felix, Judge.

      Statement of the Case
[1]   Ping Ye (“Wife”) filed a petition (the “Petition”) to dissolve her marriage with

      Richard Pickens (“Husband”). The trial court granted the Petition and divided

      the marital property. Wife presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as

      follows: whether the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the

      marital assets.

[2]   We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   Husband and Wife were married in 2004, and lived together in Dyer, Indiana.

      During their entire marriage, Husband worked for Northeast Railroad

      Commuter Service in Chicago, and Wife did not work outside the home. On

      October 28, 2020, Wife filed the Petition.

[4]   During their marriage, both Husband and Wife incurred significant debt. Both

      parties took out credit cards and loans in their individual names, and they

      purchased a condo in China that was placed in Wife’s name and used by Wife’s

      family. The trial court determined the condo had a fair market value of

      $200,000 with $30,000 still owed on the mortgage. Multiple times during the

      marriage, Wife took six-month-long trips to stay at the China condo while

      Husband stayed in Indiana and covered her expenses. Although the property

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 2 of 11
      was purchased in Wife’s name, Wife has since, without Husband’s approval,

      or, even knowledge, transferred title to her family in China.

[5]   On December 1, 2020, the trial court entered a provisional order setting forth

      responsibilities for the parties during the pendency of the Petition. The trial

      court ordered Husband to pay (1) the minimum monthly payments on all of

      Wife’s incurred debts, (2) a portion of Wife’s provisional attorney’s fees, and (3)

      $165 per week in temporary spousal support.

[6]   During the pendency of the Petition, Wife’s conduct prolonged proceedings

      while increasing Husband’s expenses. For instance, Wife failed to attend two

      scheduled mediation sessions, for which Husband was required to pay.

      Throughout the proceedings, Wife hired three different attorneys, and all three

      withdrew their representation. Wife paid for these attorneys with credit cards,

      and, pursuant to the trial court’s provisional order, Husband was required to

      make the payments on these cards.

[7]   Prior to the final hearing scheduled for October 7, 2022, Wife filed an

      Emergency Motion to Continue based upon the recent retention of her third

      attorney. The trial court denied this motion because Wife was “afforded 11

      months to obtain new counsel” after her second attorney withdrew.

      Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 19. On October 4, 2022, Wife filed a Motion for an

      Interpreter despite “Wife’s prior two years of participating fully in English

      language proceedings.” Id. The trial court granted the motion in part, allowing

      Wife to provide an interpreter at her own expense.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 3 of 11
[8]   The final hearing took place over two days on October 7, 2022, and December

      2, 2022. On November 21, 2022, Wife’s third attorney filed a Motion to

      Withdraw based upon an altercation between Wife and the attorney’s staff. On

      December 2, 2022, the trial court held an emergency hearing on the motion

      immediately prior to resumption of the final hearing; the trial court granted the

      attorney’s Motion to Withdraw, finding that the circumstances were of Wife’s

      own doing. After the third attorney’s withdrawal, Wife told the trial court that

      she could proceed that day, and she finished the final hearing pro se.

[9]   On February 22, 2023, the trial court issued the Final Decree on the Dissolution

      of Marriage. The decree provided in relevant part:

              16. The Court finds that there is a disparity in the parties [sic]
              earning ability, with Husband substantially more capable of
              earning income than Wife.

              17. The Court also finds, however, that Wife’s conduct during
              the marriage significantly dissipated the value of the marital
              estate. Both parties testified to the purchase of real estate, a
              condominium, located in China, where Wife’s family lives. . . .
              Husband testified to taking on significant debt in order to
              purchase and renovate the property which Wife’s family now
              enjoys and where Wife is known to have spent a great deal of
              time over the years since the purchase. Wife testifies that,
              contrary to Husband’s belief and intent, the property in China
              has been transferred to certain unnamed members of her family
              and that she holds no legal title to it at this time. Evidence
              presented shows a current fair market value of approximately
              $200,000.00 in U.S. currency, with a mortgage or other
              encumbrance of approximately $30,000.00.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 4 of 11
         ***

        19. The Court declines to include the property itself in the
        marital estate as there is no reliable way to ascertain whether or
        not Wife holds title to same; moreover, it is immaterial, as any
        order of the Court awarding the property in China to Husband or
        its sale would likely be void under Chinese law. The Court does,
        however, find that Wife’s conduct regarding the property in
        China constitutes a diminution of the marital estate and a
        dissipation of assets, in that testimony shows that the burden of
        the debt incurred to purchase it ultimately led to the loss of
        Husband’s real estate in the United States in 2008, and her
        conduct in transferring the property to family . . . reduces that
        value of the marital estate-directly by approximately $170,000.00.

         ***

        21. The Court finds that the marital estate had a date of filing
        value of $14,119.03 and that this amount is a mere 7.6% of what
        the value would be were it not for Wife’s actions, which the
        Court finds were a willful fraud perpetuated on Husband.

        22. Having considered all of the statutory factors set forth in
        §31-15-7-5, the Court FINDS that a deviation from an equal
        division in this case would be just and reasonable.

        23. Based on all of the statutory factors, the Court ORDERS a
        deviation in the division of the marital estate with Husband
        receiving one hundred percent (100%) of the value and Wife
        receiving zero percent (0%).

        24. Despite this, the Court recognizes the disparity in income
        earning potential between the parties and declines to order
        Wife to take on any of the debts incurred in Husband’s name

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 5 of 11
        or to make any equalizing payments from her own bank
        accounts.

        25. Additionally, the Court limits this finding to the value at
        time of filing of the parties [sic] assets and debts, the value of
        Husband’s pensions shall be assessed separately with Wife to
        receive 50% of the coverture value of those pensions in which
        Husband had a vested interest at the time of filing, including
        his Tier II Railroad Retirement benefits. Husband’s “manager
        pension,” which testimony shows was not vested at the time
        of filing, shall not be so divided.

         ***

        27. Possession of the leased marital residence is awarded to
        Husband, as wife has testified that she is unable to make the
        necessary payments to maintain said lease. Wife shall have 30
        days to vacate and find a new residence.

        28. The parties shall keep the vehicles in their own possession
        and each shall execute any necessary documents required to
        transfer ownership or title to the party in possession of said
        vehicle.

         ***

        34. Having heard the testimony of both Husband and Wife, the
        Court finds that during the intervening two years Wife at no
        point obtained gainful employment or attempted to do so, citing
        unarticulated health issues. At no point did she seek additional
        training or certifications to prepare for the eventual finalization
        of her divorce.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 6 of 11
               35. The Court will award a small measure of rehabilitative
               maintenance from Husband to Wife in order that she have some
               means to reestablish herself, but the amount and duration that
               the Court deems appropriate is determined after considering that
               Wife has been receiving maintenance, with no child care [sic]
               responsibilities or other demands on her energy for 26 months
               prior to the issuance of this Order.

       Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 22–27 (emphasis in original).

[10]   The trial court ordered Husband to pay spousal maintenance in the amount of

       $1,000 a month for the next four months or prepay the $4,000 at any time in

       that four-month timeframe. The trial court also denied Wife’s requests that (1)

       Husband maintain health insurance on her behalf, (2) Husband keep Wife as

       beneficiary on his life insurance policy, (3) Husband be ordered to continue

       making minimum payments on Wife’s debts, and (4) Husband be ordered to

       pay rent at her new residence.

[11]   On March 28, 2023, Wife filed a Notice of Appeal with this court. Three days

       later, Wife filed a Motion to Dismiss her appeal because she did not know if she

       wanted to pursue an appeal at that time; we denied this motion on April 5,

       2023. That same day, Wife’s original appellate counsel filed a Motion to

       Withdraw with this court because Wife did not think counsel was honest with

       her and counsel did not “believe that the attorney-client relationship [was] a

       workable relationship” at that time. Mot. Withdraw at 1. On April 11, 2023,

       we granted this Motion to Withdraw, and Wife proceeded with new appellate

       counsel.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 7 of 11
       Discussion and Decision
[12]   Wife argues that the trial court erred in its division of marital assets. We review

       the division of marital assets for abuse of discretion. Roetter v. Roetter, 182

       N.E.3d 221, 225 (Ind. 2022) (citing Luttrell v. Luttrell, 994 N.E.2d 298, 304–05

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)). “A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision stands

       clearly against the logic and effect of the facts or reasonable inferences, if it

       misinterprets the law, or if it overlooks evidence of applicable statutory factors.”

       Id. (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 875 N.E.2d 320, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). Here,

       the trial court entered findings sua sponte; thus, we ask “whether the evidence

       supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment,” and we

       will set aside the judgment only when it is clearly erroneous. Steele-Giri v. Steele,

       51 N.E.3d 119, 123 (Ind. 2016) (citing In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind.

       2014)).

[13]   To divide marital property, the trial court must (1) identify the property in the

       marital estate and (2) distribute the property in a just and reasonable manner.

       Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 226–27 (citing O’Connell v. O’Connell, 889 N.E.2d 1, 10–

       11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). Marital property consists of “both assets and

       liabilities and encompasses ‘all marital property,’ whether acquired by a spouse

       before the marriage or during the marriage or procured by the parties jointly.”

       Id. at 227 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Eads v. Eads, 114 N.E.3d 868, 873

       (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)). Distribution of marital property begins with a

       presumption that equal division is the just and reasonable result. Ind. Code §

       31-15-7-5. “[T]his presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 8 of 11
       relevant evidence . . . that an equal division would not be just and reasonable.”

       Id.

[14]   When a party attempts to rebut the just and reasonable presumption, the trial

       court considers evidence regarding the following factors:

               (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the
               property, regardless of whether the contribution was income
               producing.

               (2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each
               spouse:

                        (A) before the marriage; or

                        (B) through inheritance or gift.

               (3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the
               disposition of the property is to become effective, including the
               desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell
               in the family residence for such periods as the court considers just
               to the spouse having custody of any children.

               (4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to
               the disposition or dissipation of their property.

               (5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to:

                        (A) a final division of property; and

                        (B) a final determination of the property rights of the
                        parties.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 9 of 11
       I.C. § 31-15-7-5(1)–(5). These statutory factors are not the only relevant factors

       available for consideration, and “no single factor controls the division of

       property.” Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 227 (citing McBride v. McBride, 427 N.E.2d

       1148, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)). However, when ordering an unequal division

       of marital assets, the trial court must consider all the statutory factors, id.

       (quoting Wallace v. Wallace, 714 N.E.2d 774, 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)), and

       “state its reasons for deviating from the presumption of an equal division in its

       findings and judgment,” Eads, 114 N.E.3d at 874 (citing Barton v. Barton, 47

       N.E.3d 368, 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)). “The party challenging the ‘trial court’s

       division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption that the court

       considered and complied with the applicable statute.’” Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at

       225 (quoting Wanner v. Hutchcroft, 888 N.E.2d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)).

[15]   Wife claims the trial court erred in awarding Husband all the non-retirement

       assets in the marital estate; however, her argument lacks substance and is

       merely a recitation of the facts. Wife does not challenge any of the trial court’s

       findings, so we accept them as true. See R.M. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 203

       N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Madlem v. Arko, 592 N.E.2d 686,

       687 (Ind. 1992)). Wife does not point to a single case that suggests the trial

       court erred in its division of assets. Therefore, she does not provide the cogent

       reasoning required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), so she waives this

       argument for our review. See Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023).

[16]   Waiver notwithstanding, we do not find the trial court erred in its division of

       the marital estate. Here, the trial court clearly demonstrated its consideration of

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 10 of 11
       the statutory factors and identified its reasons for deviating from an equal

       division. The court considered how, when, and why the parties acquired

       property. The trial court acknowledged the difference in the earning capacities

       of the parties and accommodated that finding. It is clear that one of the biggest

       factors in the court’s decision was the court’s belief that Wife dissipated the vast

       majority of the marital estate when she transferred title of real estate to her

       family living in China. The dissipation of the marital estate reduced its value by

       more than 90%. Wife acknowledges that she was awarded $4,000 in

       maintenance but claims this amount was not enough. However, Wife delayed

       proceedings at the expense of the marital estate, and, during that time, she

       failed to find work or seek training that could increase her earning capacity.

       Thus, the trial court’s division of the non-retirement assets adequately reflects

       consideration of the statutory factors. We conclude that the trial court did not

       abuse its discretion in its division of marital assets.

[17]   Affirmed.

       Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

       Samantha M. Joslyn
       Rensselaer, Indiana

       ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
       Robert A. Plantz
       Merrillville, Indiana

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 23A-DN-698 | February 19, 2024   Page 11 of 11