Stephen Hays Sanner v. Veronica Louise Brown (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 04 2020, 11:10 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Rachelle N. Ponist Denise F. Hayden
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stephen Hays Sanner, June 4, 2020
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-DR-1843
v. Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
Veronica Louise Brown, The Honorable
Appellee-Respondent. Cynthia J. Ayers, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49D04-1611-DR-40557
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Stephen Sanner (Stephen) appeals from the trial court’s distribution of marital
property following the dissolution of his marriage to Veronica Sanner, now
Veronica Brown (Veronica), asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 1 of 26
valuing and dividing assets. Stephen raises seven issues that we consolidate and
restate as:
I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its valuation of a
home owned by the parties, Stephen’s 401(a) retirement account,
and a physical therapy bill?
II. Did the trial court err when it found that Stephen had
exclusive possession and control of the parties’ small business
called Internet Guys, LLC and thus excluded from the marital
estate his payment of bills related to that business after the date of
filing?
III. Did the trial court err when it divided the marital estate
60/40 in favor of Veronica?
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Stephen and Veronica married in May 2011, and Stephen petitioned for
dissolution of marriage on November 15, 2016. They have no children. At the
time that they married, Stephen was less than eighteen years of age and in high
school. He did not graduate, but later obtained his GED and then an
associate’s degree in Applied Science in 2014. Before their marriage, Stephen
and Veronica had a business venture called Simone Design, Inc., which
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 2 of 26
involved creating virtual clothes for avatars in a world called Second Life.1 The
business dissolved sometime between 2009 and 2011.
[4] After Simone Design but before they married, the parties began operating
Internet Guys, which provided support and services for anti-virus protection
and repaired and maintained hardware and software for clients. Internet Guys
was incorporated in Veronica’s name, and they operated the company out of
their marital home. She considered Stephen a “co-owner,” as he had access to
and was a signor on the company’s bank accounts and Quick Books. Transcript
at 81. Stephen described his duties there as an operations manager.
[5] On the Friday before Stephen filed his petition for dissolution, Veronica
removed $21,900 from Internet Guys’ checking account. According to
Stephen, this “zeroed out the account,” but, according to Veronica, she left a
small amount remaining in the account. Ultimately, the bank closed the
account in December 2016 after several checks bounced. Id. at 23. At or near
the time that she withdrew the money, Veronica removed Stephen’s name as a
co-signor and cancelled his bank card on the account.
[6] At the time of filing, the parties owned two homes, one located in Mooresville,
which was their marital residence, and one in Indianapolis on Oriental Street.
At some point not clear in the record, Veronica’s daughter, Betty Lou Burton,
1
Stephen testified that Simone Design was his business and that Veronica did some graphic design work for
the company, while Veronica testified, “I built Simone Design” and “had been running” the company “for
two years prior” to its May 2007 incorporation with the Secretary of State. Transcript at 78, 106.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 3 of 26
moved in and resided as a tenant in the Oriental Street home. In terms of
assets, Stephen also had a 401(a) retirement account with IBEW #481 Defined
Contribution Plan & Trust, and Veronica had some antiques. The parties
owned three vehicles with little to no value and a $7500 lawn tractor that was
stolen during the pendency of the dissolution.
[7] On November 28, 2016, the trial court held a preliminary hearing at which the
parties’ oral preliminary agreement was read into the record. 2 Their agreement
provided that, beginning one month from the date of the hearing, Stephen was
to pay Veronica $1000 every two weeks for six months, and Veronica “will
continue to be on his [health] insurance until the divorce is over.” Appellant’s
Appendix at 111. Veronica was to “sign over” Internet Guys to Stephen and
“add him on all the accounts” of the business. Id. at 113. Both parties agreed
not to encumber any marital assets.
[8] In August 2017, Veronica filed a motion to compel/for contempt, asserting that
Stephen had failed to abide by the terms of their preliminary agreement.
Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order finding that Stephen had
2
The parties indicated that their agreement was going to be reduced to writing and filed with the court but
that never occurred.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 4 of 26
failed to pay Veronica $1000 every two weeks as agreed and that he owed her
$14,000. 3
[9] On August 15, 2018, the trial court held the final hearing in the dissolution.
Stephen, Veronica, Betty Lou, and Veronica’s accountant, Lisa Weisp-Sharp,
testified. There was conflicting testimony on several matters. Particularly
relevant to this appeal are the following: the value of the Oriental Street house;
the value of Stephen’s 401(a) account; the value of a physical therapy bill for
services rendered to Veronica; control of Internet Guys after separation; and the
earning ability of each party.
[10] As to the value of the Oriental Street home, Stephen presented an appraisal that
valued the home at $122,000 but testified that the home’s value needed to be
reduced by $22,448 for repairs to the lateral sewer line and by $33,987 for an
existing mortgage on the home as of the date of filing. He presented an
estimate for the plumbing repairs prepared by Hope Plumbing on May 5, 2017.
The copy of the appraisal admitted at trial did not mention the broken sewer
line or the estimate for repair, and Stephen testified that the Hope Plumbing
estimate occurred after the appraisal, and that the ruptured line would not have
been known to the appraiser. On cross-examination, Stephen acknowledged
3
The order directed that “[t]he parties may agree as to how the payment is to be made or may wait until the
final hearing and incorporate this amount owed by Husband into the court’s marital estate calculation.”
Appellee’s Appendix at 8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 5 of 26
that the Hope Plumbing estimate was prepared in May 2017, months prior to
the September 2017 appraisal.
[11] Stephen acknowledged that he refinanced the Oriental Street house during the
pendency of the action, stating that he and Veronica had agreed to refinance the
home well before he filed for dissolution but that the process took months to
complete, such that it closed in December 2016, after the petition for
dissolution was filed. Stephen testified that he used the proceeds to pay various
bills, including the mortgage and utilities on both homes.
[12] With regard to his 401(a) retirement account, Stephen submitted a quarterly
statement from IBEW #481 Defined Contribution Plan & Trust that showed a
balance in his account of $46,155.57 as of September 30, 2016. He also
presented evidence of two checks he wrote from his personal account to the
defined contribution plan in December 2016 in the amounts of $1448.26 and
$1413.05.
[13] As to Internet Guys, Stephen testified that when Veronica withdrew most or all
of the funds from the bank account, he removed from the home office his
“personal laptop,” two printers, and the company’s checkbook. Transcript at
26. Stephen stated that his laptop did not have access to the customer lists or
QuickBooks. Stephen testified that during the pendency of the dissolution he
paid various business-related expenses, including $3940 to cover payroll for the
final paycheck owed to several employees after the company bank account was
closed, $1526.28 on a line of credit, and union contributions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 6 of 26
[14] As to Stephen’s income and earning ability, Stephen testified that he was doing
IT work for a company called Daedalus and Iapyx, LLC and was earning $46
per hour working full time but that, on the Monday following the hearing, he
was starting classes at IUPUI as a full-time student, and would be cutting back
his work hours to fifteen per week at $27 per hour. He testified that Veronica
did not work “98% of the time” that they were married, working only short-
term jobs at Goodwill and Long John Silvers, and that “[s]he said she wasn’t
capable of working but didn’t specify why.” Id. at 29.
[15] Stephen acknowledged that he had not paid Veronica the agreed-upon bi-
weekly $1000, which he referred to as a “stipend,” explaining that paying her
was conditioned on her turning over Internet Guys, which she did not do. Id. at
40. With regard to the health insurance, Stephen testified that the insurance
was employer-funded, paid through Union contributions, and that, when
Veronica closed the Internet Guys bank account, he no longer had access to the
business account and the insurance lapsed at some point.
[16] Betty Lou testified that Veronica was her biological mother but she was raised
by someone else and that Stephen was her friend. Betty Lou stated that she had
been employed at Internet Guys, where she performed IT work and, in effect,
was an office manager and had access to QuickBooks. She characterized
Veronica as “not very” involved with Internet Guys when it was in operation.
Id. at 57. Betty Lou stated that, when Veronica withdrew the money from
Internet Guys’ account, she took her laptop and removed three desks that she
had purchased with her own money. Betty Lou testified to organizing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 7 of 26
Daedalus and Iapyx on November 14, 2016, which was near the same time that
Internet Guys quit operating and Stephen filed his petition for dissolution.
Betty Lou stated that there essentially was no difference between the two
companies in terms of the type of work performed. She explained that she
started the new company because Internet Guys clients were calling and either
could not reach Veronica or did not have a good relationship with her and
because she did not receive her last paycheck from Internet Guys, although
Stephen eventually paid her. Betty Lou stated that Stephen was a contract
employee of Daedalus and Iapyx and that he had access to view but no
authorization to conduct activity on the company’s bank account.
[17] Stephen rested his case, and Veronica called as a witness her accountant, Lisa
Weisp-Sharp (Sharp). Sharp testified that between the years of 2007 and 2014
she had been involved with the bookkeeping for Stephen and Veronica’s two
businesses – Simone Design and Internet Guys – and she developed a
friendship with Veronica. Sharp stated that in 2017, Veronica contacted her
and asked her to prepare financial statements to close up Internet Guys. Sharp
testified to certain outstanding accounts receivable based on information from
QuickBooks, and she estimated that Stephen and Veronica “were paying
themselves” approximately $170,000 annually. Transcript at 70. On cross-
examination, Sharp stated that she gifted Veronica antiques valued at $5000-
6000.
[18] Next, Veronica testified. With regard to the Oriental Street property, she stated
that the $122,000 appraisal of the home was proper and that there was no need
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 8 of 26
to reduce it for repairs, noting that the home was habitable as Betty Lou was
living as a tenant there. With regard to the refinancing of that house, Veronica
stated that she and Stephen had discussed the matter of refinancing before the
petition for dissolution was filed, but she always was opposed to the idea and
never agreed to do so. She believed that Stephen refinanced the property and
kept the money.
[19] Veronica presented a summary exhibit of marital assets that reflected a value for
Stephen’s 401(a) as of the date of filing (November 15, 2016) of $48,683.31.
She did not testify to or present evidence to explain how she arrived at that
figure, which was an increased value from the September 30, 2016 value of
$46,155.57 presented by Stephen.
[20] Veronica stated that she had been away from their marital residence in
Mooresville for a week or so around the time that Stephen filed the petition for
dissolution. She said that when she returned home, the doors were “wide
open” and “everything” in the Internet Guys’ office was gone, including desks,
laptop computers, cell phones, and the checkbook. Id. at 75. She said when she
called the phone number for Internet Guys in the weeks that followed, Stephen
or another Internet Guys employee answered. Veronica said that the missing
desks had been purchased with Internet Guys’ money. Veronica described that
she “never had access to the Internet Guys website,” that she signed the checks
for the company and ran payroll, but that she often signed blank checks that
Stephen would complete. Veronica admitted to removing the $21,900 from the
bank account but that, per the parties’ preliminary agreement, she returned
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 9 of 26
approximately $8200 to Stephen to pay bills. In response to questioning about
whether she signed over Internet Guys to Stephen in accordance with the
parties’ preliminary agreement, she offered that Stephen took the assets and
customers, and had access to company emails and QuickBooks, so that there
really was nothing to turn over.
[21] Veronica stated that in the spring of 2017, the basement of the Mooresville
home flooded and resulted in a need to replace the furnace. She contacted the
insurance company, who sent a check to her. Veronica gave the check to Sharp
to give to Stephen, with the intention that he get the repairs done, but instead
he returned the check to the insurer. Because the furnace was never repaired,
the pipes in the home froze and/or leaked, causing ceiling damage. Veronica
testified that she repaired the furnace at her own expense.
[22] Veronica testified to incurring medical bills during the months of January 2017-
April 2017, for physical therapy to her knee. She presented a bill from ATI, a
provider, indicating a total balance owed of $4204.31, with a patient balance of
$527.26 and an insurance balance of $3577.05. Veronica testified that Stephen
was to maintain health insurance on her during the pendency of the action, but
she believed it lapsed around March 2017, and she did not know whether
insurance had paid the $3577.05 balance.
[23] Veronica testified that she currently was working six days per week at a call
center and had been there for four or five months. She did not testify as to her
hourly wage.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 10 of 26
[24] The trial court took the matter under advisement. On September 14, 2018, the
trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, which included:
Findings of Fact
10. At the time of filing, the unpaid balance on Mooresville was
One Hundred Fifty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Dollars
and Thirty Cents ($159,560.30). The home has a negative equity
in the amount of Eighty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty
Dollars and Thirty Cents ($87,860.30); the deficit to be allocated
between the parties.
11. Prior to separation the parties remodeled the Oriental home.
The Oriental home appraised for One Hundred Twenty-Two
Thousand Dollars ($122,000) as of September 11, 2017. An
estimate for plumbing damage to the main sewer line was
performed May 5, 2017. The state of the sewer line and necessary
repairs were known and taken into consideration at the time of the
appraisal.
***
27. During the marriage, the parties owned and operated an
information technology home-based business, known as Internet
Guys.
***
29. Husband asserted he was an employee of Internet Guys and
had no ownership interest in the business.
***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 11 of 26
31. At the time Husband left the mar[ital] residence, he removed
office equipment from the business including computers, printers,
desks and cell phones that belonged to Internet Guys. Husband
also took possession of the Internet Guys checkbook.
***
33. On November 14, 2016, Wife withdrew Twenty-One
Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($21,900.00) from the Internet
Guys bank account.
***
35. Pursuant to the preliminary agreement, Wife returned Eight
Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($8,200.00) to Husband as
payment for business expenses Husband had paid. It was further
agreed the sum of Thirteen Thousand Seventy Hundred
($13,700.00) retained by Wife would be addressed at final
hearing.
36. Further, pursuant to the preliminary agreement, Wife was
ordered to turn the Internet Guys business over to Husband.
37. The Internet Guys checking account was closed out by the
bank in December 2016 due to its overdrawn status.
38. Husband paid certain business-related debt on behalf of
Internet Guys as follows:
a. Business Line of Credit: One Thousand Five Hundred
Twenty-Six dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($1,526.28).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 12 of 26
b. Union expenses: Eleven Thousand Three Hundred
Eighty-Three Dollars and Sixty Cents ($11,383.60)
***
43. Daedalus and Iapyx, LLC consists of the same services, same
employees, and identical customers as Internet Guys.
Additionally, when someone calls the Internet Guys phone
number, the calls are routed to employees of Daedalus and
Iapyx, LLC. The items removed by Husband from Internet
Guys are now used by Daedalus and Iapyx, LLC.
44. Husband has a 401(a)-retirement account through a union
from and a company where he was previously employed. He
continued to contribute to the account after the parties’
separation. The vested balance of Husband’s retirement account as of
the date of filing was Forty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-Three
Dollars and Thirty-One Cents ($48,683.31).
***
47. The parties own a lawn mower valued at Seven Thousand
Five Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars and Three Cents ($7,564.03),
including attachments, after the outstanding loan was paid off.
The lawn mower was stolen from the Mooresville residence shed.
To replace would incur a Fifteen Hundred Dollar ($1,500.00)
insurance deductible.
***
49. The parties’ joint debt at the time of filing includes:
a. HH Gregg: $ 651.99
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 13 of 26
b. Hoosier United Credit Line: $ 4,972.97
c. Hoosier United Credit card: $ 3,942.89
d. Menards: $ 685.51
e. Care Credit: $ 517.60
f. Chase credit card: $ 937.50
g. Wife medical bill (Harris) $ 395.72
h. Wife medical bill (ATI) $ 4,204.31
50. Following the filing of the Petition herein, Wife was
unemployed for some period. Wife now has employment in a call
center earning Twelve Dollars ($12.00) per hour.
51. Pursuant to the preliminary agreement, Husband was to pay
Wife One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) every other week for a
period of six months as spousal maintenance beginning
December 28, 2016. Following hearing held September 11, 2017,
Husband was found to owe Wife a total of Fourteen Thousand
($14,000), as none of the maintenance had been paid.
52. Husband was required to maintain health insurance on Wife
following the preliminary agreement. Husband allowed Wife’s
insurance coverage to lapse.
***
Conclusions of Law
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 14 of 26
57. Here, Husband refinanced the Oriental home after a
temporary restraining order was entered at the Preliminary
Hearing. Husband claimed the funds were utilized for marital
expenses; however, no documentation or accounting was
provided as to the expenses that were paid. Therefore, the Court
has inadequate information to apply the dissipation factors.
Although Husband conceded to Wife receiving her portion of the
full value of equity, Husband requested reimbursement for funds
for loans and expenses related to Internet Guys as well as
mortgage and utilities payments for the Mooresville residence.
***
59. Husband earns substantially more than Wife since the parties’
separation. Husband failed to pay spousal maintenance as
ordered.
***
61. Husband took control of the parties’ business upon vacating the
Mooresville home, Husband’s control was reaffirmed following
preliminary hearing when Wife was to turn the business over to
Husband. At that point, Husband had already converted Internet Guys
business to [] Daedalus and Iapyx, LLC.
***
65. As the business was in exclusive control of Husband pursuant
to agreement of the parties, and as neither estimated a value [for]
the business, any debts paid on behalf of Internet Guys or loans
to the company were also excluded from the marital division
calculation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 15 of 26
66. The Court finds equitable division of the marital pot as
follows:
a. Husband Will be awarded both the Oriental and Mooresville
properties. Husband will be awarded the automobiles, including
any expenses associated with them. Husband will take the lawn
mower (or the insurance claim value thereof). Husband will be
solely responsible for the mortgage refinance of Oriental.
b. Wife shall cooperate with the police department and the
homeowner insurance company regarding the lawn mower to
ensure that Husband receives the insurance proceeds.
c. Wife Will be awarded the antiques and she will be given credit
for the Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($13,700.00)
already received.
d. Husband shall receive no credit for alleged loans to Internet
Guys or debts paid by Internet Guys.
e. Husband shall receive no credit for utility and mortgage
payments made on Mooresville residence.
f. Husband shall be responsible for the parties’ joint credit card
debt, line of credit, and Wife’s hospital bills.
g. Wife shall be awarded one-half (1/2) the value of Husband’s
retirement account as of the date of filing. Wife is entitled to an
equalization payment from Husband in the amount of Twenty-
Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars and Forty-
Seven Cents ($24,135.47).
h. Wife shall also be entitled to her prior spousal maintenance
order of Fourteen Thousand Dollars ($14,000.00) as this Court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 16 of 26
previously ordered November 28, 2016. The total amount owed
to wife is Thirty-Eight Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Five
Dollars and Forty-Seven Cents ($38,135.47). Husband shall pay
wife this amount within One Hundred Twenty (120) days of this
Decree of [D]issolution.
Appellant’s Appendix at 36-46 (emphases added).
[25] On October 14, 2018, Stephen filed a motion to correct error and to reconsider,
asserting various claimed errors, including: (1) the value of the Oriental Street
house should be reduced by both the mortgage and the $22,448 in sewer repairs;
(2) the value of the stolen lawn tractor should be reduced by a $1500 insurance
deductible; (3) the value of Stephen’s 401(a) account should be $46,156.57 as
reflected in the plan statement ending September 30, 2016 that was admitted at
trial; (4) Stephen did not have exclusive control of Internet Guys after date of
filing, as the trial court found, because Veronica removed the money in the
company’s bank account and he lost access to online activities including
banking and QuickBooks; and (5) Veronica should be responsible for half of the
following: (a) the $18,166.23 that Stephen paid in marital debt on credit cards
and lines of credit; (b) utilities on the Mooresville residence after Stephen
moved out; and (c) business debts that Stephen paid such as the last payroll and
a line of credit.
[26] Stephen attached to his motion, among other things, the appraisal of the
Oriental Street home because the copy of the appraisal that was admitted at
trial was incomplete due to the fact that inches of text at the bottom of most or
all pages was missing. The full appraisal included the following: “Owner
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 17 of 26
provided appraiser with estimate of sewer repair for $22,448 from Hope
Plumbing. For this report the hypothetical assumption [is] that repairs will be
done by the city with no cost to the home owner.” Appellant’s Appendix at 64.
[27] On May 30, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Stephens’s motion. On July
10, 2019, the trial court issued an order granting Stephen’s motion as to the
lawn mower, finding that “[t]he value of the tractor with the deduction is
$6,064.03 not $7,564.03, as found in the decree[,]” but denied Stephen’s other
requested relief. Id. at 106. The court’s division resulted in an approximate
60/40 split in favor of Veronica. Stephen now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[28] Initially we observe that the dissolution court entered special findings of fact
and conclusions thereon pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). Accordingly, our
standard of review is two-tiered: first, we determine whether the evidence
supports the findings, and second, whether the findings support the judgment.
O’Connell v. O’Connell, 889 N.E.2d 1, 10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Findings of fact
are clearly erroneous when the record lacks any evidence or reasonable
inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. The judgment will be
reversed if it is clearly erroneous. Id. To determine whether the findings or
judgment are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence favorable to the
judgment and all reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Id. We will not
reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. Id. Even though there is
evidence to support it, a judgment is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 18 of 26
examination of the record leaves it with the firm conviction that a mistake has
been made. Id.
I. Valuation of Assets and Debt
[29] Stephen challenges the trial court’s valuation of the Oriental Street house, his
401(a) retirement account, and Veronica’s ATI physical therapy bill. A trial
court has broad discretion in ascertaining the value of property in a dissolution
action. Id. We will not reweigh the evidence and will consider the evidence in
the light most favorable to the judgment. Morey v. Morey, 49 N.E.3d 1065, 1069
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We will find no abuse of discretion if the trial court’s
decision is supported by sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences
therefrom. O’Connell, 889 N.E.2d at 10. A trial court, however, “abuses its
discretion when there is no evidence in the record supporting its decision to
assign a particular value to a marital asset.” Id. at 13-14.
[30] Here, when determining a value for the Oriental Street house, the trial court
reduced the $122,000 appraised value by the outstanding $33,987.66 mortgage
but did not reduce it by the cost of the sewer repairs as Stephen requested. The
$122,000 appraisal occurred in September 2017. Stephen testified that Veronica
arranged the appraisal and that he was not present when it occurred, such that
the appraiser would not have known about the needed repair or its cost.
Stephen also testified that the plumbing estimate occurred after the appraisal,
but later in his testimony conceded that the plumbing repair estimate occurred
months prior, in May 2017. Consistent with that, the full appraisal (presented
with the motion to correct error) reflected that the appraiser was made aware by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 19 of 26
the “owner” – whether that was Veronica or Stephen is not clear – of the
broken sewer line and Hope Plumbing’s estimate for the cost of the repair, but
assumed for purposes of the appraisal that the city would cover that expense.
Appellant’s Appendix at 64. There was no testimony presented at the final
hearing from the plumber or a representative of the city or from Stephen
regarding whether the city would in fact be responsible for the repair, as the
appraiser assumed. Based on the record before us we cannot say that the trial
court abused its discretion when it declined to reduce the appraised value by the
cost of the sewer repairs.
[31] We next turn to the value of Stephen’s 401(a) retirement account, which the
court valued at $48,683.31. At the final hearing, Stephen presented an exhibit
comprised of various statements and documents, reflecting his proposal of the
assets and debts that comprised the marital estate. One of the documents
therein was a statement from IBEW #481 reflecting a value of $46,155.57 as of
September 30, 2016. The only evidence of additional contributions to IBEW
#481 were two checks that he wrote in December 2016 – after the November
2016 date of filing – in the amounts of $1448.26 and $1413.05. Stephen was not
asked about and did not testify to making any contributions after September 30
and before the date of filing in November, and it was unclear whether those two
payments in December were for his account only or were intended to be
contributions on behalf of Internet Guys to other employees’ accounts as well.
Veronica presented a summary exhibit that listed the 401(a) having a value of
$48,683.31. She did not testify to and there was no evidence presented
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 20 of 26
concerning the basis for that figure. Although Stephen did not object to her
exhibit, we cannot say that the $48,683.31 value assigned by the trial court to
represent the account’s value on the date of filing was supported by the
evidence. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s finding #44 and conclusion
#66(g), where the court values the 401(a) account at $48,683.31, remand to the
trial court with instructions to use the value of $46,155.57, and revise the
equalization payment owed by Stephen to Veronica accordingly.
[32] Stephen also challenges the trial court’s valuation of the ATI physical therapy
bill. The court’s division of property utilized the full amount owed of $4204.31,
and not the patient balance amount. Stephen argues that this was an abuse of
discretion because “the invoice is clear that Veronica only owes $527.26 to
ATI.” Appellant’s Brief at 24. However, Veronica testified she did not know
whether insurance had paid all or any of the $3577.05 “insurance balance” and
stated that she believed the insurance lapsed in March 2017. Appellee’s Appendix
at 38. Stephen does not dispute that it lapsed but argues that it did so in May
2017 because Veronica closed the Internet Guys’ bank account and denied him
access such that the employer-paid insurance lapsed. While it is not clear if
Stephen obtained replacement health insurance, it is clear that, according to the
parties’ preliminary agreement, Stephen was to keep Veronica on his insurance
“until the divorce is over” and that did not occur. Appellant’s Appendix at 111.
We cannot say that the trial court’s decision to include the full balance owed on
the ATI bill was an abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 21 of 26
II. Control of Internet Guys and Payment of Debt
[33] The trial court determined that, after the petition was filed, Stephen took
control over and was in possession of Internet Guys. Thus, the court did not
give Stephen credit in its division of the marital estate for his payment of the
business-related bills during the pendency of the action. Stephen argues that
these determinations were erroneous. We disagree.
[34] The record reflects that, when Veronica withdrew the $21,900 from Internet
Guys’ bank account, Stephen removed his laptop, two printers, cell phones, and
the company’s checkbook, and, according to Veronica he had access to the
company’s clients, billing, and other financial information. When she made
calls to the phone number for Internet Guys over the course of a couple weeks,
Stephen or another former Internet Guys employee answered. Betty Lou
testified there really was no difference between the two companies in that both
companies did the same work for mostly the same clients. Based on this record,
we find that the trial court did not err when it found that Stephen had control of
Internet Guys and declined to award him credit for his payment of bills
associated with that company.
III. Division of Estate
[35] Stephen challenges the trial court’s division of the marital estate, noting that
both parties requested a 50/50 split, but the trial court’s division resulted in a
60/40 split in favor of Veronica. The division of marital assets is within the
trial court’s discretion, and we will reverse a trial court’s decision only for an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 22 of 26
abuse of discretion. Smith v. Smith, 136 N.E.3d 275, 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
We may not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses, and
we will consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s disposition
of the marital property. O’Connell, 889 N.E.2d at 10.
[36] The division of marital property in Indiana is a two-step process. Id. First, the
trial court determines what property must be included in the marital estate, and
second, the trial court must then divide the marital property under the statutory
presumption that an equal division of marital property is just and reasonable.
Id. at 10-11. A party challenging the trial court’s division of marital property
must overcome a strong presumption that the trial court considered and
complied with the applicable statute, and that presumption is one of the
strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal. Id. at 10.
[37] Under Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5, “[t]he court shall presume that an equal division
of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable.”
However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who
presents relevant evidence, including evidence concerning the
following factors, that an equal division would not be just and
reasonable:
***
(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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 23 of 26
(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.
I.C. § 31-15-7-5. “‘The statutory factors are to be considered together in
determining what is just and reasonable; any one factor is not entitled to special
weight.’” Smith, 136 N.E.3d at 282 (quoting In re Marriage of Lay, 512 N.E.2d
1120, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)).
[38] Stephen argues that the trial court failed to “expressly outline the statutory
factors and reasons it relied upon when deviating from an equal division of the
estate.” Appellant’s Brief at 31. We disagree. The court found that Stephen had
a greater earning ability, with him earning $46 per hour and Veronica earning
$12 per hour. Stephen asserts that this finding was unsupported by the evidence
because (1) he testified, “I start school next Monday” and would be earning $27
per hour working fifteen hours per week for Daedalus and Iapyx, and (2) there
was no evidence presented as to Veronica’s hourly wage rate or weekly
earnings. Transcript at 7. However, the trial court was not required to believe
Stephen’s testimony about starting college, how much he would be working, or
what he would be earning. We will not reweigh that evidence. As to
Veronica’s income, we agree with Stephen that there was no evidence presented
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 24 of 26
as to Veronica’s hourly wage rate, with the evidence being only that she worked
six days per week at a call center. While Veronica testified that at some point
prior to the marriage she was making around $80,000, there was evidence that
she worked very little during the marriage, and when she did, it was either in
some capacity at Internet Guys, although the evidence was that she was not
very involved there, or at Goodwill or Long John Silvers. More importantly,
there was testimony that she was not able to work, although that subject was
not explored or explained at the final hearing. On this record, we do not find
that assigning an hourly wage to Veronica of $12 per hour was erroneous.
[39] In addition, the evidence was that Stephen earned his GED, then an associate’s
degree, and he testified that he was about to begin full-time classes at IUPUI to
obtain a bachelor’s degree. There was no evidence as to Veronica’s education.
Given this record, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it determined
that Stephen had a greater earning ability than Veronica.
[40] The court also recognized that “Husband refinanced the Oriental home after a
temporary restraining order was entered at the Preliminary Hearing.”
Appellant’s Appendix at 43. Per the parties’ agreement, neither party was to
encumber marital assets. While Stephen testified that he and Veronica had
agreed to do so and that the process took a long time to complete, such that it
closed after the petition was filed, Veronica testified that she never agreed to
refinance the home and was, in fact, opposed to the idea when they discussed it.
While Stephen said he used the money to pay various marital and business-
related bills, Veronica testified that she believed he kept the money. It was the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 25 of 26
court’s prerogative to assess witness credibility, and it chose to believe
Veronica’s testimony concerning refinancing.
[41] Based on the record before us, we find that Stephen has not met his burden of
persuading us that the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the
marital estate. On remand, we instruct the trial court to value Stephen’s 401(a)
account at $46,155.57 and revise the equalization payment owed by Stephen
accordingly.
[42] Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Bailey, J. and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-1843 | June 4, 2020 Page 26 of 26