Opinion
24A-DN-360
10-31-2024
Steven Eugene Archer, Appellant-Respondent, v. Doretta June Archer, Appellee-Petitioner.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jonathan A. Danks Danks &Danks Evansville, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Matthew J. McGovern Fishers, Indiana
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Vanderburgh Superior Court The Honorable Mary Margaret Lloyd, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D05-2202-DN-192
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jonathan A. Danks Danks &Danks Evansville, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Matthew J. McGovern Fishers, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Robb, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Following the dissolution of the marriage of Doretta and Steven Archer, Steven appeals the trial court's division of their marital property, contending the court abused its discretion in calculating the growth of Doretta's IRA and annuity accounts. Concluding the court erred in its computation, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] Doretta and Steven were married on May 6, 2011. At the time of the marriage, Doretta had a 401k account with a balance of $261,876. In 2014, Doretta rolled these funds over into an IRA. Then in 2018, Doretta transferred $150,000 from the IRA to fund an annuity account.
[¶3] In February 2022, Doretta petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage. Both Doretta's IRA and the annuity had increased in value during the marriage. In dividing the parties' assets, the court calculated the growth of these accounts, placed those amounts in the marital pot, and set them over to Doretta in addition to other marital assets. To obtain a 50/50 split of the marital pot, the court ordered Doretta to make an equalization payment to Steven. Asserting error with the amount of the equalization payment based on an alleged error in the court's calculation of the growth of Doretta's IRA and annuity accounts, Steven moved to correct error. The court denied his motion, and Steven now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶4] We first address Doretta's assertion that Steven waived his claim by failing to specifically challenge any of the court's findings and failing to offer any evidence concerning the valuation of Doretta's accounts.
[¶5] In his motion to correct error, Steven specifically identified paragraphs 5.h., 5.i., 11, and 12 of the trial court's final decree as the source of the calculation error. See Appellant's App. Vol. II, pp. 22-23. And in his brief to this Court, Steven quotes the challenged findings. See Appellant's Br. p. 8. Moreover, valuation evidence from Steven was not necessary because he does not dispute the established balances of the accounts. See id. Instead, he alleges a calculation error by the trial court. Therefore, Steven has not waived his claim.
[¶6] We turn now to the issue Steven presents in this appeal. He argues the court erroneously calculated the growth of Doretta's IRA and annuity accounts, resulting in an inadequate equalization payment to him from Doretta.
[¶7] Where, as here, the trial court on its own motion issues special findings and conclusions under Trial Rule 52(A), we apply a two-tiered standard of review in which we first determine whether the evidence supports the findings and, if so, we then determine whether the findings support the judgment. McIntosh v. McIntosh, 222 N.E.3d 998, 1003 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (quoting Town of Linden v. Birge, 204 N.E.3d 229, 233 (Ind. 2023)). We will not set aside the findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous, which occurs when the findings have no factual support in the record and when a judgment applies an incorrect legal standard to properly found facts. McIntosh, 222 N.E.3d at 1003 (quoting Wysocki v. Johnson, 18 N.E.3d 600, 603-04 (Ind. 2014)). We review any issues not addressed by the findings under the general judgment standard, such that we will affirm the trial court's decision based on any legal theory supported by the evidence. McIntosh, 222 N.E.3d at 1003 (quoting Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123-24 (Ind. 2016)).
[¶8] Doretta testified that in 2018 she transferred $150,000 from her IRA and put the money in an annuity. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 11, 16; see also Ex. Vol. I, p. 12 (Ex. 2A). At the time of separation, Doretta's IRA had a value of $283,416 and the annuity had a value of $162,000. Tr. Vol. II, p. 16; Ex. Vol. I, pp. 11 (Ex. 2A), 19 (Ex. 5). With regard to these accounts, the court found:
h. Prior to her marriage, [Doretta] had $261,876.00 in a 401k from her previous employment with Deaconess. In June of 2014, [Doretta] rolled all of these funds into an IRA. During the marriage, these funds grew to $283,416.00 for a profit of $21,540.00.
i. [Doretta] transferred $150,000.00 from her IRA into a Mass. Mutual Annuity in June of 2018. This annuity's value increased by $12,000.00 during the marriage[.]Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 14 (Bifurcated Final Decree (12/15/2023), ¶¶ 5.h., i.). The court further concluded:
11. [Doretta] shall be awarded solely her IRA and the $21,540.00 without any claims by [Steven]. The Court finds all of the IRA, other than the growth amount, was acquired solely by [Doretta] prior to the marriage and solely acquired by her contribution.
12. [Doretta] shall be awarded solely her Mass. Mutual Annuity. The Court finds the initial $150,000.00 came from an IRA that [Doretta] acquired prior to the marriage and solely acquired by her contribution. The Court puts the Annuity's $12,000.00 growth during the marriage into the mutual pot and is also awarded solely to [Doretta] free of any claims by [Steven].Id. at 15 (¶¶ 11, 12). Based upon these determinations, the court calculated the equalization payment Doretta was to make to Steven.
[¶9] The following chart reflects the evidence concerning Doretta's investment transactions during the marriage:
IRA Annuity
$261,876 Funded by Doretta's pre-marital 401k $0
- $150,000 To fund Annuity $ 150,000
= $111,876 - Balances in 2018 - $150,000
$283,416 - Balances at Final Separation - $162,000
Thus, at the time of separation, the aggregate value of Doretta's investments was $445,416. From that total, we subtract the value of Doretta's pre-marital 401k that the court set over to Doretta and did not include in the marital pot: $445,416 - $261,876 = $183,540. Thus, the remaining $183,540 represents the growth of the accounts during the course of the marriage. The court correctly stated it was including such growth in the marital pot.
[¶10] However, the court erroneously credited Doretta twice with the $150,000 she transferred from her IRA to fund the annuity account, thereby reducing the amount of the equalization payment due to Steven. In the final decree, the court determined that "all of the IRA, other than the growth amount, was acquired solely by [Doretta] prior to the marriage and solely acquired by her contribution." Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 15 (Bifurcated Final Decree (12/15/2023), ¶ 11) (emphasis added). In addition, the court set over to Doretta her annuity and determined that "the initial $150,000.00 came from an IRA that [Doretta] acquired prior to the marriage and solely acquired by her contribution." Id. (¶ 12) (emphasis added). This error resulted in the court assigning a value of $33,540, instead of the correct amount of $183,540, to the growth of Doretta's investment accounts for the purpose of determining the amount of the equalization payment. See id. at 17 (Court's Ex. #1, Marital Balance Sheet).
Conclusion
[¶11] We conclude the trial court erred in its calculation of the growth of Doretta's investment accounts, which, in turn, reduced the equalization payment Steven was to receive from Doretta. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
[¶12] Reversed and remanded.
Crone, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.