Court Opinion

ID: 9724773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:12:30.315999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:05.765500
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court's order was insufficient to explain its deviation from a 50/50 split. The trial court explicitly stated that the parties' extensive cohabitation prior to their marriage was a primary factor in its property division.
The majority, by deciding that the trial court's findings are ambiguous, has simply reweighed the evidence. The trial court, when making special findings pursuant to a request under Trial Rule 52, is not required to express its decision with meticulous exactitude, as the majority seems to desire. The trial court's findings are sufficient if they demonstrate a valid legal basis for the result reached by the trial court. Data Processing Services, Inc. v. L.H. Smith Oil Corp. (1986), Ind.App., 493 N.E.2d 1272; Morphew v. Morphew (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 770. The trial court is not required to weigh every piece of evidence and explain its reasoning in minute detail.
The trial court could reasonably conclude that the parties' extensive cohabitation before their marriage, during which Claudia received substantial assets, entitled Claudia to a slightly larger share of the marital estate. While those facts could support a different conclusion, our focus is on what the trial court did, not on what it could have done. See Beeson v. Beeson (1989), Ind.App., 538 N.E.2d 293. It is not for us to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. The trial court articulated a valid legal basis for its decision. The decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and its findings were not clearly erroneous.
The majority also concludes that the trial court was required to make an explicit finding of the total value of the estate. This court in Dean v. Dean (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 1378, observed that the trial court is not required to value each marital asset so long as it can determine the approximate gross value of the marital estate. The only property not valued in the decree was the parties' vehicles. Because each party received one vehicle, we cannot conclude the trial court was unable to determine the approximate gross value of its distribution to the parties. While a total value of the marital estate would have aided our review, we will not hold the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to provide the value of the gross marital estate.
The trial court should be affirmed.