A lot of folks going through a divorce assume that Indiana law requires judges to split the marital estate 50/50. That isn’t so. In some cases, judges can see fit to award more of the marital estate to one party than the other. While Indiana does start with the presumption that the marital estate should be divided equally, judges have broad discretion when it comes to deviating from that rule.

Background of the case

In the aforementioned case, the trial court was tasked with deciding how to divide a rather sizeable marital estate. The estate included the marital home, some businesses, and several financial accounts. Indiana operates on what’s known as the “one pot” theory. In Indiana, all property from both spouses is placed in the marital estate and subject to equitable distribution.

After the court reviewed the evidence, the trial court awarded the majority of the marital estate’s assets to the husband. This included both the marital home and income-producing property. The court also saw fit to award the wife an equalization payment that was intended to balance the overall distribution of the estate. Even with the payment, however, the wife was severely disadvantaged in the distribution. 

For obvious reasons, the wife appealed the split to the higher court in the hopes of getting a more even distribution of the marital estate.

The appeal

In this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed whether or not the trial court abused its discretion by dividing the marital estate unevenly. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or retry the case. They determine whether or not the court erred as a matter of law. The appeals court determines whether the trial court considered the correct legal factors and whether the decision is supported by the record.

When dividing the marital estate, the trial court must weigh several factors ,such as the parties’ economic circumstances, contributions made to the acquisition of property, and their conduct during the marriage. The appeals court ruled that the trial court accurately weighed these factors when dividing the marital estate unevenly. The wife’s appeal was thus denied. 

Key takeaways

This case offers a number of important lessons for anyone going through a divorce in Indiana. These include:

• Equal does not always mean fair – While Indiana will begin with a presumption that the marital estate should be divided evenly, it does have the discretion necessary to deviate from that standard.
• Trial court decisions carry significant weight – Appeals do not retry the case. If a trial court explains its reasoning and that reasoning is based on evidence, the decision is likely to stand.

Talk to a Danville, IN, Divorce Lawyer Today

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