The case of Carmer v. Carmer, recently before the Indiana Court of Appeals, is one such example. This was a case in which a couple married for more than 20 years was separating after purchasing two homes together, having three children and in the midst of preparing to adopt two more. There was a premarital agreement on the table, but there was dispute about how it should be interpreted. There was also contention as to whether husband’s monthly annuities – received as compensation stemming from a personal injury lawsuit – should be factored into the child support schedule.

Just as every marriage is different, so too is every divorce and every divorce agreement. It’s imperative throughout the process to have an experienced divorce attorney advocating on your behalf and for the best interests of your children.more

In the Carmer case, according to court records, the couple was married in 1994. Six years prior to the marriage, husband was severely injured in an auto accident, during which he suffered a traumatic brain injury. He now walks with a limp and can’t use one of his arms. He receives $6,500 a month in annuities, plus periodic lump sum payments, and works as a greeter at a large chain store earning about $450 a week.

Wife was not employed during marriage, but stayed home to raise their children, the oldest of which is emancipated. The two were also raising two foster children and they had planned to adopt them, but the husband stated he no longer wanted to adopt after filing for divorce. The children were removed from the home, which wife was solely responsible for maintaining after husband moved out, due to unsanitary conditions and pet waste. The wife participated in protective services programs and is still trying to adopt.

Based on the prenuptial agreement, wife was to retain her separate property, half of all joint property and $70,000 lump sum payment if the marriage lasted longer than 14 years (which it did). Parties owned two homes and several vehicles, but they also had a fair amount of debt. Wife, who managed the family’s finances, admitted they lived beyond their means.

Trial court decided husband’s child support payments should be $150 a month, based on his income as a greeter. Court did not count the money he received in annuities, citing the Structured Settlement Protection Act and IRS code. The court further determined that while wife was to receive $70,000, that amount could be reduced by the amount she took from the husband’s annuity to pay for legal representation during the adoption process after the children were removed from her care due to neglect. This was deemed a “dissipation of marital assets.” Wife was also deemed responsible for the dissipation of marital assets caused by loss of property value to the marital home due to failure to clean the pet waste.

The court affirmed in part with regard to the dissipation of marital assets and the fact that wife was responsible to cover the cost of her attorney’s fees relative to the adoption. However, appeals court ruled trial court erred in failing to include husband’s monthly annuity in the child support payments. The idea is that children are supposed to live as closely as possible to the lifestyle they would have had if the family had been left intact. Those annuity payments were used to support the family, and thus, the court ruled, they could be used to continue support of the children.

These kinds of disputes are not unique to this case, and results can vary depending on circumstances. By hiring an experienced family law attorney, you ensure your rights and interests are protected.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Carmer v. Carmer, Oct. 30, 2015, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Nelson v. Nelson – Challenge of Child Custody Order, Oct. 2, 2015, Gary Divorce Lawyer Blog

There is a legal presumption under Indiana law that property will be divided equally (50/50). However, parties can overcome that presumption by rebutting it with evidence to show why there should be a deviation. The goal isn’t always totally equal division, but rather equitable (fair) division in light of the circumstances.

Division of property is often one of the most contentious aspects of any divorce, and it’s one that often makes it to the appellate courts when one or both parties disagree with trial judge’s ruling. Such was the case in Carie v. Carie, recently before the Indiana Court of Appeals. more

This was an Indiana divorce case involving a couple with one child. However, all issues related to child custody and child support were resolved. Disagreements were primarily regarding whether trial court abused discretion by failing to include marital liabilities in the marital pot and whether the court abused discretion in the valuation of certain assets.

According to court records, husband purchased a home in 2004, before he began dating his future wife. Wife moved in about four years later, they had a child together the following year and the year after that, they were married.

During their time together, wife decorated the home, made several home improvements, replaced the flooring, repainted the kitchen cabinets, landscaped and hung shutters. Throughout this time, it was husband who paid the mortgage on the $100,000 home.

By the time they separated in the spring of 2013, the remaining balance on the mortgage was $79,000.

Prior to the marriage – but while the pair were living together – husband installed a new roof and a new pole barn. The latter cost $20,000, for which he took out a withdrawal against his 401K. There were later tax consequences when his employer shut down and the withdrawal was converted to a loan.

There were two vehicles purchased during the marriage, and those vehicles were later traded in for a smaller purchase after separation. Husband bought an ATV as well during marriage, and still owed $7,600 on it at time of separation.

Both parties had retirement accounts.

In the course of dividing marital property, trial court assigned husband with the fair market value of the vehicles and also determined the home – which he was allowed to keep – had appreciated in value by $30,000 during the marriage.

Husband later appealed on both issues. First, he said the vehicle valuations were improper because they failed to take into account the actual amount owed. Rather, the valuation was the Blue Book value. Appeals court affirmed, finding husband failed to present any evidence as to his remaining balance on those vehicles.

With regard to the appreciation of the home value, the appellate panel found based on the evidence presented, trial court made a decision on this point that was within the range of evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Arguing things like valuation and what should be included in the “marital pot” is often more complex than most people realize. Consulting with an experienced divorce attorney in Hammond will help ensure no critical evidence that could help your case is excluded.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Carie v. Carie, Aug. 11, 2015, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

In re: Marriage of Honer – Valuation of Marital Assets, June 18, 2015, Northwest Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog

Officials were careful to caution that the appearance of those emails doesn’t necessarily mean anyone signed up for the service using their work email, but an investigation was being launched nonetheless. It’s not so much a moral issue, they say, as a potential violation of government email use policy.

But whether having an account tied to the site that encourages affairs causes workers trouble with their employer, it may not have a direct effect on one’s divorce. That’s because Indiana is a no-fault state when it comes to divorce.more

What that means is the reasons for one’s divorce – even if they are valid, like adultery – are not considered by the court with regard to division of assets, division of debts or child custody or parenting time.

However, this does not mean an extramarital affair is never relevant to a Gary divorce proceeding. What would be necessary to show is that the affair in some way negatively affected joint finances, debt situation or the emotional well-being of children.

Our Indiana divorce lawyers would first start with the issue of dissipation. In any divorce case in Indiana, there is the presumption that all liabilities and assets are going to be equitably divided. That presumption can be rebutted in a number of ways. For example, if one party makes significantly more income than another who stayed home to care for children, the stay-at-home parent may be entitled to a larger share of assets. Now, let’s say a cheating spouse used marital assets on an affair partner – or trying to obtain an affair partner (say, though Ashley Madison). Any finding of moneys spent for these purposes could be used as grounds to deviate from even division.

In cases involving minor children, we might analyze whether infidelity might be used to our advantage in court. It’s important to note courts do not tie a person’s fitness as a parent with his or her degree of faithfulness in a marriage. However, if the cheating spouse used poor judgment in introducing the affair partner to the children or dating a person who poses a clear risk to the children – those elements could be weighed by the court in custody and parenting time determinations.

Interestingly, in the case of Ashley Madison, some officials have noted certain accounts may reflect attempts by some people to catch their spouses in an act of infidelity, rather than actually engage in it themselves.

It would be unwise to jump to conclusions about the email addresses listed. But those who have through this hack uncovered information about their spouse they deem troubling should discuss their concerns with an experienced divorce attorney who can help you explore your options. That might not necessarily mean divorce. Some couples confronted with this kind of revelation choose this turning point to enter into a post-marital agreement. This is an opportunity for spouses to rededicate themselves to the union, with the agreement going a long way toward showing the aggrieved spouse the other is serious about putting the past behind them.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Indiana agencies, cities probe worker email addresses linked to Ashley Madison site, Aug. 21, 2015, By Justin L. Mack, USA Today

More Blog Entries:

Negotiating Retirement Benefits in Indiana Divorce Agreement, July 20, 2015, Gary, Indiana Divorce Attorney Blog