Indiana law begins with the presumption that marital property should be divided equally between spouses at the time of their divorce. However, that presumption is rebuttable, and courts may order an unequal division when the evidence shows that an equal split would not be just or reasonable. A recent Indiana Court of Appeals decision illustrates how and why trial courts may deviate from a 50/50 division of the marital estate.

Background of the case

This case stemmed from the dissolution of the marriage between the parties, with the main issue being the division of the marital estate. During the marriage, the husband contributed substantially to the marital estate in the form of pre-marital bank and retirement accounts. The wife claimed that regardless of the source of the property, the division of property should be equal under the statutory presumption.

Upon hearing the evidence presented in the case, the trial court determined that an equal division of the property was not fair. The court determined that a substantial portion of the marital estate was comprised of property the husband acquired prior to the marriage, which he continued to maintain separate from the marital estate. As such, the court ordered an uneven distribution of assets with the larger share going to the husband.

The wife appealed the decision, claiming it was an abuse of discretion to order an uneven division of the property without a justification.

The appeal

Upon appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the division of property under an abuse of discretion standard. The court reiterated the fact that although there is a presumption of equal division under Indiana Code § 31-15-7-5, the presumption is rebuttable if evidence is presented showing an qual division would be unjust or unreasonable.

Furthermore, the appellate court highlighted the fact that the trial court is allowed to take into account several factors when determining if an qual division of property is reasonable or if an unequal division is justified. The facts include the contributions of each spouse to the accumulation of property, whether the property was acquired before the marriage, and the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time of the divorce.

Based on the aforementioned factors, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when dividing the property. The fact that the husband entered into the marriage with substantial assets and that the assets constituted a substantial portion of the marital estate was a valid reason for dividing the property unequally.

Talk to a Danville, IN, Divorce Attorney Today

Chris Arrington represents the interests of Danville residents who are looking to divorce. Call our office today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin preparing your case right away.