One commonly held belief is that marital property is always divided in half during divorce. It is true that Indiana law starts with the presumption that it should be divided 50/50, but the court can see fit to award more of the marital estate to one party over the other. 

Background of the case

In the case we are about to review, the parties disputed how their marital assets should be divided following their divorce. The trial court awarded around 64% of the marital estate to the husband and only 36% to the wife. The court followed several statutory guidelines when making this decision. These guidelines can be found in Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5.

The court found that the evidence showed that the husband brought significant assets into the marriage. In addition, he contributed to the acquisition of more assets during the marriage. This influenced the court’s decision. Based on that fact, the trial court concluded that the husband should receive more of the marital estate than his wife. 

The appeal

The wife appealed the verdict. According to her, the unequal distribution of the marital estate was unfair, and the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded 63% of the marital estate to the husband. In addition to that argument, she claimed the trial court had unfairly valued certain assets within the estate. She argued that the trial court’s reliance on premarital contributions made by the husband was not enough to warrant favoring him in the divorce. 

The Indiana Court of Appeals took up the case. It is important to understand that trial courts have broad discretion when deciding how the marital estate should be divided. The appellate court does not retry the case or reweigh evidence. It can only rule that the trial court made some sort of error that violates the statute. 

In this case, the appeals court decided that the trial court did not err when dividing the marital estate. They did have sufficient evidence to warrant favoring the husband with a greater share. Thus, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Key takeaways

There are several important points to make here. Firstly, Indiana law might begin with the presumption that the marital estate should be divided 50/50, but in some cases, equal does not mean fair. In this case, the court considered the husband’s contributions to the marriage. He brought substantial assets into the marriage in the beginning. In addition, he preserved these assets during the marriage. This significantly influenced how the trial court divided the assets. Appeals are very difficult to win. You must show that the trial court erred as a matter of law. In this case, the wife couldn’t prove that the trial court erred. Hence, the husband’s distribution remained intact.

Talk to a Danville, IN, Family Law Attorney Today

Chris Arrington represents the interests of Indiana residents during their divorce. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.