Court Opinion

ID: 9714727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:44:23.978077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.215219
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority, but write separately to emphasize a point that might not otherwise be so obvious.
When a general finding is made, this court will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is sustainable upon any legal theory which is supported by the evidence. Shrum v. Dalton (1982), Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 366. In this case, however, there *184remains an unanswered part of the equation necessary for us to complete our review-the value of the marital estate.
The majority relies upon In re Marriage of Davidson (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 641. In Davidson, the parties had requested special findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52. Id. Based upon the trial court's findings, this court was able to ascertain the discrepancy in the division of the marital assets. Id. In the present case, neither party has requested such findings.
Unless there is no dispute as to the value of the marital estate, the trial court should make findings regarding the value of the marital assets even without a request by the parties. These findings are necessary to demonstrate compliance with IND. CODE 31-1-11.5-11 which requires either an equal division of the assets or the articulation of reasons for a deviation from an equal division. Id. If the trial court fails to make such findings, the division of marital assets under IND. CODE 81-1-11.5-11 will effectively be shielded from review because an essential fact (the value of the marital estate) will remain unknown.