Miller v. Miller

1

Shannon R. Miller, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Steven M. Miller, Appellee-Respondent.

No. 22A-DN-2116

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 30, 2023

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Gibson Superior Court The Honorable Roman J. Ricker Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 26D01-1903-DN-354

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT April L. Edwards Boonville, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Daniel A. Moon Daniel Moon Law Office LLC Princeton, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Foley, Judge.

[¶1] Following dissolution of the marriage of Shannon R. Miller ("Wife") and Steven M. Miller ("Husband"), Wife appeals the trial court's determinations in its Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Wife raises the following issues for our review:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate by: (1) crediting Husband with $30,000 in equity in the Marital Real Estate; (2) segregating Husband's 401k from the other marital property and then deviating from a 50/50 division by awarding $115,000.00 to Husband and $65,000.00 to Wife; (3) failing to award Wife any gains and/or losses associated with Husband's 401k; and (4) failing to include certain marital debt in the marital pot for division;

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it: (1) found that Wife committed dissipation by failing to collect rent; (2) denied Wife's request for incapacity maintenance; and (3) denied Wife's request for attorney's fees.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶2] Wife and Husband began dating in 2007. At that time, Wife lived in Henderson, Kentucky, and worked as a mortgage closing agent. Husband worked-and still works-as a diesel mechanic^[1] and lived on approximately 16.709 acres located in Princeton, Indiana (the "Marital Real Estate").

Husband purchased the Marital Real Estate in 2004. During the summer of 2009, Wife and her son from a prior marriage left their home in Kentucky and moved in with Husband. In 2010 and 2011, Husband purchased adjacent parcels of land that added 0.6887 acres and 0.791 acres, respectively, to the Marital Real Estate. On October 15, 2011, Wife and Husband married and there were no children born from the marriage. In 2012 and 2015, Wife and Husband purchased additional parcels of land which brought the total acreage to approximately twenty-one-acres. The Marital Real Estate consisted of the marital residence, two barns, two mobile homes, and pastureland.^[2]

[¶3] Wife held numerous jobs during the marriage. After moving in with Husband, Wife first worked at Princeton Medical, a local veterinary office. Wife then began working as a dog groomer for Bed, Bath &Biscuits while also working as a night shift manager at Taco Bell. In 2016, Wife started her own dog grooming business ("Sweet Dreams"), which eventually began offering a mobile petting zoo and pony parties. Sometime after that, Wife resigned from Bed, Bath, &Biscuits; later, Wife ceased working at Taco Bell to solely focus on Sweet Dreams.

[¶4] In 2014, Wife was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and referred to Dr. Bell for treatment. Dr. Bell prescribed opioids to alleviate Wife's pain, but she did not use them as prescribed, so Dr. Bell stopped prescribing them. In lieu of the opioids, Wife began using marijuana to treat her pain. Wife then received a prescription for Gabapentin from another doctor. Wife continued to suffer from symptoms related to rheumatoid arthritis and eventually applied for social security disability benefits. Wife's application for benefits was approved, and in September of 2016, she began receiving monthly benefits in the sum of $1,213.00.

[¶5] During the course of the marriage, brothers Floyd "Everett" McCoy and Larry McCoy lived in the two mobile homes on the Marital Real Estate. Everett performed work on the Marital Real Estate in exchange for room and board in one of the mobile homes. Larry McCoy lived in and rented the other mobile home. Larry McCoy's rental payment consisted of $250 per month in addition to also performing work on the property. Wife's adult son still lived in the marital residence, but he never paid rent. On March 16, 2018, the marital residence burned down. It was eventually rebuilt, and substantially expanded with insurance proceeds and a new mortgage.

[¶6] On March 4, 2019, Wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage. While the dissolution was pending, Wife had exclusive use and possession of the marital residence. Husband paid the mortgage and all the utility bills.

[¶7] A final dissolution hearing was held on December 14 and 15 of 2021, and on February 23, 2022. At the hearing, Wife requested deviation from the presumptive 50/50 division of the marital estate to a 70/30 division in her favor, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. Husband requested that the trial court segregate and distribute 100% of Husband's 401(k) to Husband, equally divide the remainder of the marital estate, and deny Wife's request for spousal maintenance and attorney's fees.

[¶8] On June 23, 2022, the trial court issued its decree of dissolution of marriage, as follows: (a) credited Husband $30,000.00 in equity in the Marital Real Estate; (b) segregated Husband's 401(k) from the other marital assets and awarded $115,000.00 to Husband and $65,000.00 to Wife; (c) divided the remainder of the marital estate equally (50/50) between the parties; (d) found that Wife committed dissipation by failing to collect rent on one of the mobile homes; and denied Wife's request for attorney's fees and spousal maintenance. On July 25, 2022, Wife filed a motion to correct error, raising many of the same issues raised on appeal. On August 8, 2022, the trial court granted Wife's request to adjust the amount of post-dissolution coal lease proceeds distributed to Wife on the trial court's marital balance sheet and denied the remainder of Wife's motion. Wife now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[¶9] When issues are tried upon the facts by the court without a jury, Trial Rule 52 provides that a trial court "shall find the facts specially and state its conclusion thereon" either "[u]pon its own motion" or upon "the written request of any party filed with the court prior to the admission of evidence." "'Our standard of review on judgments under Trial Rule 52 differs slightly depending upon whether the entry of specific findings and conclusions comes sua sponte or upon [written] motion by a party.'" Trust No 6011, Lake County Trust Co. v. Heil's Haven Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n, 967 N.E.2d 6, 14 (Ind, Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Jones, 953 N.E.2d 608, 614 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011), trans. denied). On December 13, 2021, Wife filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Where a trial court enters specific findings on motion, our standard of review is well established:

[We] will "not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). Under our . . . two-tiered standard of review, we must determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether those findings support the judgment. We consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment, and we do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. We will find clear error only if the record does not offer facts or inferences to support the trial court's findings or conclusions of law.

Johnson v. Johnson, 181 N.E.3d 364, 371 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021). In addition, this court may affirm "a judgment on any legal theory, whether or not relied upon by the trial court, so long as the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and support the theory adopted." Dow v. Hurst, 146 N.E.3d 990, 996 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020).

I. Division of the Marital Estate

[¶10] Wife claims that "the trial court erred and abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate." Appellant's Br. p. 23. Specifically, Wife asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision to credit Husband with $30,000.00 of equity in the Marital Real Estate. Wife next contends that the trial court erred when it segregated and divided Husband's 401(k). Finally, Wife argues that the trial court erred when it failed to include certain debts in the marital pot for division.

[¶11] The division of marital property is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion. In re Marek, 47 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016), trans. denied. "We will reverse a trial court's division of marital property only if there is no rational basis for the award; that is, if the result is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, including the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom." Id. When we review a claim that the trial court improperly divided marital property, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's disposition of the property without reweighing evidence or assessing witness credibility. Id. at 1288-89. "Although the facts and reasonable inferences might allow for a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court." Id. at 1289. Such a case turns on "whether the trial court's division of the marital property was just and reasonable." Morgal-Henrich v. Henrich, 970 N.E.2d 207, 210-11 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012).

[¶12] The division of marital property is a two-step process in Indiana....