Teri Woenkhaus v. David Woenkhaus

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 06 2012, 8:41 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
of the supreme court,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
JOE KEITH LEWIS DOUGLAS D. MARTZ
Marion, Indiana Marion, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TERI WOENKHAUS, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 34A02-1111-DR-1041
)
DAVID WOENKHAUS, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable George A. Hopkins, Judge
Cause No. 34D04-1010-DR-1254
June 6, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Teri Woenkhaus (Wife) appeals the trial court’s property division order in the
dissolution of her marriage to David Woenkhaus (Husband). Specifically, Wife argues
that the findings of fact and conclusions of law do not support the judgment because
although the trial court concluded that Wife rebutted the statutory presumption that an
equal division of marital property is just and reasonable, the trial court only awarded
Wife 50% of the marital property. Finding no error, we affirm and remand the case to the
trial court with instructions for the trial court to place the parties’ income tax refunds in
the marital pot and award them to Wife.
FACTS
Husband and Wife were married in July 1990. They have one child, a twenty-
year-old son. Wife filed a petition for dissolution in October 2010, and the trial court
held a hearing on the petition in August 2011. At the time of the hearing, Husband was a
truck driver for Wal-Mart and earned approximately $80,000 in 2010. Wife was the
office manager for a law firm and earned approximately $35,500 in 2010. The trial court
issued its dissolution and property distribution order in October 2011.
In the order, Finding of Fact Number 15 provides that the parties filed joint federal
and state income tax returns for 2010. They received a $6,842 federal refund and a $368
state refund. The finding of fact also states that [Wife] exercised control over all of the
tax refunds. However, the trial court failed to include the tax refunds in the marital pot
and distribute them.
2
The trial court concluded that the net marital estate was $89,706.10 and that Wife
rebutted the statutory presumption that an equal division of the marital property is just
and reasonable. Nevertheless, the parties agree that the trial court equally divided the
marital estate. Wife appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Marital property includes both assets and liabilities. McCord v. McCord, 852
N.E.2d 35, 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The trial court’s authority to divide marital property
is governed by Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4, which provides that the trial court has the
authority to divide property that was 1) owned by either spouse before the marriage; 2)
acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before the final
separation of the parties; or 3) acquired by their joint efforts.
The division of marital property is a two-step process. Thompson v. Thompson,
811 N.E.2d 888, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). First, the trial court determines what property
must be included in the marital estate, which includes “all the property acquired by the
joint efforts of the parties.” Id. Second, the trial court must divide the marital property.
Id. The statutory presumption is that an equal division of the marital property is just and
reasonable. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. However, the trial court may deviate from this
presumption. Chase v. Chase, 690 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
We apply a strict standard of review to a trial court’s distribution of property upon
dissolution. Wilson v. Wilson, 732 N.E.2d 841, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The division
of marital assets is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hyde v. Hyde,
3
751 N.E.2d 761, 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The party challenging the trial court’s
property division bears the burden of proof and must overcome a strong presumption that
the court complied with the property division statute by considering each of the statutory
factors in Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5.1 Indeed, the presumption that the trial court
correctly followed the law and made all proper considerations in dividing the marital
estate is one of the strongest presumptions on appeal. Spivey v. Topper, 876 N.E.2d 781,
787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Thus, we will reverse only if there is no rational basis for the
award. Id.We note that in this case, at Wife’s request, the trial court made special findings of
fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). Our standard of review
is therefore two-tiered. Heiligenstein v. Matney, 691 N.E.2d 1297, 1299 (Ind. Ct. App.
1998). First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings of fact and then
whether those findings support the judgment. Id. On review, we do not set aside the trial
court’s findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous. T.R. 52(A). A finding is clearly
erroneous when there is no evidence or inferences reasonably drawn therefrom to support
it. Shively v. Shively, 680 N.E.2d 877, 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). The judgment is
clearly erroneous when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions entered
on the findings. Id. We may affirm the judgment on any legal theory supported by the
findings if that theory is consistent with “all of the trial court’s findings of fact and the
1
These factors included the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, the extent to
which the property was acquired by each spouse before the marriage or through inheritance or gift, the
economic circumstances of each spouse at the time of the disposition of the property, and the conduct of
the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.
4
inferences reasonably drawn from the findings[,] and if we deem such a decision prudent
in light of the evidence presented at trial and the arguments briefed on appeal.” Mitchell
v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 924 (Ind. 1998).
Wife’s sole argument is that the trial court’s findings and conclusions do not
support the judgment because although the trial court concluded that she rebutted the
presumption that an equal division of marital property is just and reasonable, the trial
court only awarded her 50% of the marital property. As noted above, Finding of Fact
Number 15 states that the parties received a $6842 federal tax refund and a $368 state tax
refund for 2010, and that Wife exercised control over both of the refunds. However, the
trial court failed to include the tax refunds in the marital estate and distribute them.
Because the trial court included the tax refunds in the findings of fact, we believe
that the trial court also intended to include the refunds in the marital pot where they were
acquired by both of the working parties’ joint efforts, see Nill v. Nill, 584 N.E.2d 602(Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that the trial court acted properly in including a tax refund
in the property subject to division), and that the trial court’s failure to do so was a mere
oversight. When the refunds are added to the marital pot and distributed to Wife, Wife
receives 54% of the marital property and Husband receives 46%. This distribution is
consistent with the trial court’s conclusion that Wife rebutted the presumption that an
equal division of marital property is just and reasonable. And under such circumstances,
the trial courts findings and conclusions support its judgment.
5
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded with instructions that the
trial court include the federal and state tax refunds in the marital pot and award them to
Wife.
KIRSCH, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
6