[¶12] "The division of marital assets, including a determination as to whether an asset is a marital asset, is within the trial court's discretion." Harrison v. Harrison, 88 N.E.3d 232, 234 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017), trans. denied.

On the other hand, some property interests are considered too remote or speculative to constitute assets capable of division. SeeHarrison v. Harrison , 88 N.E.3d 232, 235-236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (noting the wife's interests in certain trusts were subject to complete defeasance because she would take nothing if she predeceased her parents and would receive nothing during her lifetime unless a majority of the trustees elected to make a disbursement, and concluding the wife was not presently possessed of any pecuniary value which could have been before the court for disposition) (citing Loeb v. Loeb , 261 Ind. 193, 301 N.E.2d 349, 353 (1973) (holding the husband's interest in a trust was subject to complete defeasance because he would take nothing under the trust if he predeceased his mother and thus he was "not presently possessed of any pecuniary value which could have been before the court for disposition")), trans. denied.

It is also within the trial court's discretion to determine whether an asset is a marital asset. Harrison v. Harrison , 88 N.E.3d 232, 234, (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. This Court will reverse the trial court's determination only if that discretion is abused.

Determining whether an asset is a marital asset is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse such a determination only for an abuse of that discretion. Harrison v. Harrison, 88 N.E.3d 232, 234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. [14] Husband argues that the 529 accounts are not marital assets because he created them in 2018 (after the date of final separation), they "are solely in Husband's name," and "the only funds in these accounts result from $8,000 in additions that Husband made post-filing at some point in calendar year 2018."

She relies on the recent case of Harrison v. Harrison , in which another panel of this Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude from the marital estate a wife's interest in her family trusts. 88 N.E.3d 232, 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied (2018).