Opinion
24A-DC-633
11-22-2024
James Rankin, Appellant-Petitioner v. Lesa Rankin, Appellee-Respondent
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Katherine N. Worman Worman Legal Evansville, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Jeffrey Shoulders Bob Zoss Law Office, LLC Evansville, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Leslie C. Shively, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D0l-2204-DC-000464
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Katherine N. Worman Worman Legal Evansville, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Jeffrey Shoulders Bob Zoss Law Office, LLC Evansville, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Felix, Judge
Statement of the Case
[¶1] James Rankin ("Husband") filed a petition for the dissolution of his marriage to Lesa Rankin ("Wife"). The trial court dissolved the marriage, determined custody and support for their minor child (the "Child"), and divided the marital property. In doing so, the trial court gave primary physical and legal custody of the Child to Husband, declined to issue a child support obligation to Wife, and ordered Husband to pay incapacity spousal maintenance to Wife. Husband appeals and presents three issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Husband to pay incapacity maintenance to Wife;
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred by declining to order Wife to pay child support; and
3. Whether the trial court erred in its division of the marital property. Wife cross-appeals, alleging the trial court erred in its division of the marital property.
[¶2] We affirm but remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] Husband and Wife married on June 9, 2001, had two children, and lived together in Evansville, Indiana. During the marriage, Husband worked as a truck driver and occasionally did home remodeling work on weekends for extra money. Wife maintained full-time employment at the outset of the marriage, but she stopped working full-time following the birth of their first child in 2002.Wife did work part-time for a few years but that ended around 2019.
Husband and Wife's first child had reached the age of majority by the time Husband filed for dissolution.
[¶4] Wife has suffered from various mental health issues since she was in high school, but these issues worsened after the birth of the Child in 2007. Husband often took Wife to the hospital for mental health treatment during their marriage; he "could not keep track" of the number of times he took her in for treatment, but he estimated it could have been 40 to 50 times. Tr. Vol. III at 230. In 2016, Wife began working part-time at an elementary school as an assistant and teacher's aide. After three years, Wife stopped working at the school because she started hallucinating at work.
[¶5] Wife also suffers from multiple physical conditions, including a heart condition requiring a pacemaker, high blood pressure, restless leg syndrome, and acid reflux. Wife receives continuing treatment and takes medication to manage these conditions. Wife also has a sleep disorder that has resulted in multiple instances where she has fallen asleep while driving.
[¶6] On April 26, 2022, Husband filed a petition for the dissolution of the marriage, and Husband and the Child moved in with Husband's step-mother while Wife occupied the marital residence alone. Shortly thereafter, both parties filed motions for provisional relief, seeking possession of marital property, payment of marital debt, and custody of the Child. On August 11, 2022, the trial court entered a provisional order, awarding exclusive possession of the marital residence to Wife, giving Husband primary physical custody of the Child, and ordering Husband to pay for marital debts and temporary maintenance in favor of Wife.
[¶7] On September 29, 2022, Wife's counsel filed a motion to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL") for Wife, claiming:
4. It has become readily apparent to the undersigned that he is unable to adequately and properly represent the interests of the Wife in connection with this action because of her mental, emotional, and physical state, without the assistance of someone trained in the area of mental health and possessing more expertise, training and experience than the undersigned in dealing with such mental health issues.
5. The Wife may be unable to assist the undersigned in defense of the Husband's dissolution of marriage action to the extent she may be unable to rationally process information and opinions provided to her by the undersigned, or reach rational conclusions with regard thereto.Appellant's App. Vol. II at 50-51. On October 11, 2022, Husband filed a motion seeking to modify the provisional order due, in part, to Husband's concerns regarding Wife's ability to take care of the family pets.
[¶8] On October 12, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the issues of appointing a GAL for Wife and modifying the provisional order. At the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Laura Ellsworth, a licensed mental health counselor. Earlier in the proceedings, the trial court had appointed Ellsworth as the GAL for the Child. In this role, Ellsworth had visited with Wife and had reviewed Wife's medical records. Based on the review of Wife's medical records, Ellsworth testified that Wife has a "history of being okay and then not being okay" where "she can appear very normal for a brief period of time and then go downhill very quickly." Tr. Vol. III at 63. Ellsworth ultimately had "concerns about [Wife] being able to function independently on her own," id. at 65, and believed Wife "needs someone daily to be observing her at the level of mental health difficulty that she struggles with," id. at 71. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court appointed Laurie Bumb to serve as GAL for Wife. The trial court also modified the provisional order by granting Husband possession of the marital residence. The trial court "anticipated that the Wife will be moving in with her parents who reside in Thompsonville, Illinois" which is more than one hour away from Evansville. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 66.
[¶9] The trial court held a hearing on the dissolution petition on April 11 and August 24, 2023. At the April 11 hearing, Ellsworth testified that Wife had been hospitalized twice since the hearing on the provisional order. Further, Wife admitted her medical records into evidence demonstrating her long medical history, mental and physical diagnoses, and prescribed medications.
[¶10] On November 14, 2023, the trial court issued its decree dissolving the marriage, dividing the marital property, and determining custody as well as support for the Child. The trial court attached a marital balance sheet which identified and valued the parties' assets, retirement accounts, personal property, and debts. The marital balance sheet also distributed each item to the parties. Shortly thereafter, both parties filed motions to correct error. On February 5, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the motions. On February 12, 2024, the trial court denied Wife's motion, granted Husband's motion in part, and issued an amended decree but did not attach a new marital balance sheet. On March 14, 2024, the trial court issued an amended order on the motions to correct error, making corrections to its amended decree. No new marital balance sheet was attached to the amended order. Ultimately, Husband was given sole legal and physical custody of the Child and was ordered to pay $150 per week to Wife as incapacity maintenance for 24 weeks. Due to her mental health issues, Wife was granted only supervised visitations with Child. The trial court deviated from the Child Support Guidelines and declined to order Wife to pay support for the Child. In dividing the marital estate, the trial court awarded Husband $254,905.49 of its value while awarding Wife $270,345 of the value. Husband now appeals, and Wife cross-appeals. Additional facts will follow.
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[¶11] The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, thus we will set aside the trial court's judgment "only if it is clearly erroneous." Cooley v. Cooley, 229 N.E.3d 561, 564 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)). "Without reweighing the evidence or reassessing witness credibility, we determine whether the evidence supports the court's findings and, if so, whether those findings support its judgment." Id. (citing S.D. v. G.D., 211 N.E.3d 494, 497 (Ind. 2023)). "For issues not covered by the findings, we apply our general judgment standard, meaning we 'should affirm based on any legal theory supported by the evidence.'" State ex rel. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Leonard, 226 N.E.3d 198, 202 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 119, 123-24 (Ind. 2016)).
1. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Ordering Husband to Pay Incapacity Maintenance
[¶12] Husband argues that the trial court erred in awarding Wife incapacity maintenance. We review the trial court's award of spousal maintenance for abuse of discretion. Roetter v. Roetter, 182 N.E.3d 221, 225 (Ind. 2022) (citing Luttrell v. Luttrell, 994 N.E.2d 298, 304-05 (Ind.Ct.App. 2013)). "A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision stands clearly against the logic and effect of the facts or reasonable inferences, if it misinterprets the law, or if it overlooks evidence of applicable statutory factors." Id. (citing Mitchell v. Mitchell, 875 N.E.2d 320, 323 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007)).
[¶13] Indiana Code section 31-15-7-2 provides in relevant part that a court may order incapacity spousal maintenance:
(1) If the court finds a spouse to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the incapacitated spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected ....Our Supreme Court has noted that, once this finding is made, "the trial court should normally award incapacity maintenance in the absence of extenuating circumstances that directly relate to the criteria for awarding incapacity maintenance." Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524, 527 (Ind. 2001).
[¶14] Here, the trial court ordered Husband to pay incapacity maintenance to Wife in the amount of $150 per week for 24 weeks. Husband contends that Wife failed to show she suffers from mental or physical incapacity affecting her ability to support herself. We cannot agree with Husband.
[¶15] The evidence shows that Wife has been diagnosed with multiple mental and physical health conditions requiring continuing treatment. Wife suffers from a heart condition that requires medication and a pacemaker. She also has a sleep condition that has caused her to fall asleep while driving on multiple occasions. In regard to her mental health, Wife submitted medical records showing her diagnoses and related treatment. Husband testified that Wife had "serious mental issues," Tr. Vol. III at 16, and had frequent hospitalizations for mental health treatment. Additionally, Wife's mental health forced her to quit her most recent job working at a school because she was suffering from hallucinations. After considering this evidence, the trial court found in relevant part:
47. The Court has considered the testimony of the Guardian Ad Litem, Laura Ellsworth, and has reviewed her report. Further, the Court was presented with a narrative prepared by the Guardian Ad Litem of treatments and hospitalizations by the Wife (see Exhibit "PP"), the Wife's medical records (see Exhibits "GG-OO") introduced into evidence, and the Husband's testimony himself talking about numerous hospitalizations and in-patient treatments experienced by the Wife during their marriage which he estimated to be 40-50.
It appears obvious to the Court that the Wife suffers from serious mental, emotion [sic] and medical conditions which prevent her from working full-time or even part-time, and which substantially impair her earning capacity. The Court believes that based on the evidence and the testimony introduced at trial the Wife is not employable at any paying position.Appellant's App. Vol. II at 146.
Husband also contends that the trial court did "not includ[e] any findings that the Wife suffers from a physical or mental incapacity that materially affects here (sic) ability to support herself." Appellant's Br. at 16. It is quite clear from this quoted paragraph of the Decree that the trial court did make the necessary findings. In paragraph 44 of the Decree, the trial court also relied on Wife's mental health issues as a reason to conclude that they "impair her ability to provide care for the minor child." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 145. We note that Husband does not complain about Wife's mental and emotional concerns preventing her from caring for the Child; only in obtaining a job.
[¶16] The record reveals that Wife suffers from multiple mental and physical conditions. The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that these conditions affect her ability to support herself. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding incapacity maintenance to Wife.
2. The Trial Court Did Not Err by Deviating From the Child Support Guidelines
[¶17] Husband claims that the trial court erred by failing to order Wife to pay child support. "Our Supreme Court has long placed a 'strong emphasis on trial court discretion in determining child support obligations.'" Wilson v. Wilson, 222 N.E.3d 1031, 1034 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (quoting Lea v. Lea, 691 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. 1998)). We will reverse a trial court's child support determination only if it is clearly erroneous, meaning the trial court's decision is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial court." Id. (citing 2 In re Paternity of K.C., 171 N.E.3d 659, 679 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021)). In our review, we will not reweigh the evidence and will consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Id. (citing In re Paternity of K.C., 171 N.E.3d at 679).
[¶18] "Child support orders should comply with the Indiana Child Support Rules and Guidelines." In re Paternity of W.M.T., 180 N.E.3d 290, 302 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021) (citing Macher v. Macher, 746 N.E.2d 120, 127 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001)). The trial court may deviate from the Guidelines "only if it provides written findings to justify the deviation." Id. (citing Clark v. Madden, 725 N.E.2d 100, 107 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000)). "A trial court's specific findings will be found clearly erroneous 'only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference.'" Wilson, 222 N.E.3d at 1034 (quoting Ratliff v. Ratliff, 804 N.E.2d 237, 244 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004)).
[¶19] Here, the trial court deviated from the Child Support Guidelines by declining to order Wife to pay any child support obligation, and Husband argues that the trial court clearly erred because it provided no basis for this decision in its decree. However, the trial court issued the following finding on child support:
52. The Court declines to order the Wife to pay any support going forward and finds this deviation appropriate due to the ongoing economic and health struggles of the Wife. Once the Wife has obtained the appropriate mental health treatment and obtains employment and/or disability payments, the Court will reconsider an order of child support upon a motioned [sic] filed by Husband for modification.Appellant's App. Vol. II at 147-48. As discussed above, Wife presented evidence to the trial court demonstrating that her health prevented her from obtaining gainful employment or producing any income. Wife had not obtained employment for at least two years before the dissolution action began. Thus, the evidence supports the trial court's deviation from the Child Support Guidelines.
[¶20] Additionally, Husband claims the trial court erred by failing to consider Wife's previous employment, which ended in 2019, as evidence of her present earning capacity. This argument is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Wilson, 222 N.E.3d at 1034. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court clearly erred in declining to order Wife to pay child support.
[¶21] Finally, Husband also complains that the trial court did not prepare and attach a Child Support Obligation Worksheet ("CSOW") as required by the Child Support Guidelines. See Ind. Child Support Guideline 2 ("Indiana requires worksheets..."); Child Supp. G. 3(B)(1) ("In all cases, a copy of the worksheet which accompanies these Guidelines shall be completed and filed with the court ...."). Wife does not respond to this error. In his argument, Husband cites Cobb v. Cobb 588 N.E.2d 571 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992), for support of the proposition that the trial court erred by not attaching a CSOW. However, even in Cobb, it was acknowledged that such error could be harmless if the trial court issued sufficient specific findings to base its child support award. Cobb, 588 N.E.2d at 574 ("We cannot review a support order to determine if it complies with the guidelines unless the order reveals the basis for the amount awarded. Such a revelation could be accomplished either by specific findings or by incorporation of a proper worksheet."). While we would prefer, as the Guidelines require, that the trial court had prepared a CSOW for our review, we believe remanding this matter over this issue, especially when the trial court made specific findings about the parties' income and determined that any presumptive obligation would result in a deviation, would raise form over substance. Had this been the only issue, we would not have required it, but, because we are remanding for other issues, we will remand on this issue as well to have an appropriate CSOW prepared.
3. The Trial Court's Marital Balance Sheet Is Inconsistent with Its Findings
[¶22] Both Husband and Wife argue that the trial court erred in its division of the marital property. We review a trial court's division of marital property for abuse of discretion. Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 225 (Ind. 2022). The division of marital property in Indiana includes a two-step process. Id. at 226. First, the trial court must identify the property to include in the marital estate. Id. at 22627 (citing O'Connell v. O'Connell, 889 N.E.2d 1, 10 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008)). The marital estate includes assets as well as liabilities "and encompasses 'all marital property,' whether acquired by a spouse before the marriage or during the marriage or procured by the parties jointly." Id. at 227 (quoting Eads v. Eads, 114 N.E.3d 868, 873 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018)). Second, the trial court must distribute the property in a just and reasonable manner. Id. (citing O'Connell, 889 N.E.2d at 10-11); Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5.
[¶23] The parties' arguments fall into three categories: (a) the trial court's valuation of Wife's jewelry, (b) alleged errors in the marital balance sheet, and (c) the justness and reasonableness of the trial court's distribution of the marital property. We address each category in turn.
a. Valuation
[¶24] Wife claims the trial court erred in valuing her jewelry. We review the trial court's valuation of a marital asset for abuse of discretion. Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152, 157 (Ind. 2010) (citing Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996)). "[S]o long as sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences support the valuation, the trial court has not abused its discretion." Baglan v. Baglan, 137 N.E.3d 271, 277 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (citing Bingley, 935 N.E.2d at 157).
[¶25] When Wife vacated the marital residence, she took a jewelry box that was "full of stuff." Tr. Vol. III at 207. The trial court ultimately valued the jewelry as marital assets worth $15,000. Wife claims that there is "no evidence" to support this valuation. Appellee's Br. at 10. The record shows that the jewelry box included Wife's wedding ring and multiple necklaces that Husband had purchased for her; Husband estimated that he had paid about $15,000 in total for this jewelry. Wife points us to her testimony where she claims she does not possess the jewelry and most of her jewelry was insignificant costume jewelry. Wife is requesting us to reweigh the evidence, which we do not do. See Cooley, 229 N.E.3d at 564. Thus, the trial court's valuation for the jewelry is supported by the evidence.
b. Marital Balance Sheet
[¶26] Both parties make arguments alleging that the division of property in the marital balance sheet is not supported by the trial court's findings. The trial court's initial decree divided the marital estate by awarding Husband $254,905.49 of its value while awarding Wife $270,345 of its value, resulting in an approximately 51/49 division in favor of Wife. The balance sheet demonstrating this division is the only balance sheet the trial court provided, meaning the trial court did not provide updated balance sheets with its amended decree or orders on motions to correct error.
[¶27] Husband and Wife both claim that the trial court's findings are inconsistent with the trial court's division of property: (i) Husband claims the trial court erred regarding the division of his 401(k) plan, and (ii) Wife claims that the trial court erred by awarding Husband credit for expenses incurred during the pendency of the dissolution.
i. 401(k) Plan
[¶28] Husband claims the trial court's decree is contradictory regarding the division of his 401(k) benefits. The trial court's amended decree provides the following regarding Husband's 401(k):
21. The Court also notes that the Husband has a 401K Plan with his employer. The evidence presented to the Court leaves the Court to determine that the Husband's 401K has a value of Forty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Three Dollars ($44,903.00). The Wife shall be awarded the same given the present economic circumstances as noted in paragraph 18.
* * *
31. Wife's counsel shall prepare the QDRO within ten (10) days for approval as to form by Husband's counsel. Husband shall be the sole owner of the remaining funds of his 401(k).Appellant's App. Vol. II at 140, 142 (emphases added). We initially note that the trial court's balance sheet values the 401(k) at $44,403, which is inconsistent with the $44,903 amount determined in the findings. In its amended order on motion to correct error, the trial court amended paragraph 31 to read as follows:
The Wife shall have an interest in the sum of Thirty-Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-One Dollars and Three Cents ($33,991.03), plus or minus any gains or losses via QDRO from Husband's Teamsters National 401(k) Savings Plan. Wife's counsel shall prepare the QDRO within ten (10) days for approval as to form by Husband's counsel. Husband shall be the sole owner of the remaining funds of his 401(k). Wife's counsel shall prepare the QDRO within ten (10) days for approval as to form by Husband's counsel as shown on the marital balance sheet.Id. at 150. Husband argues that the $44,903 figure in paragraph 21 and the marital balance sheet is inconsistent with the $33,991.03 amount designated in its amended paragraph 31. We also note that the marital balance sheet does not account for the remaining funds (e.g., total value of the 401(k) minus the amount distributed to Wife) distributed to Husband. Not taking this into account also causes the total distribution to the parties to be incorrect. Due to the inconsistencies between the trial court's findings on the 401(k) and the amount provided in the balance sheet, we agree with Husband and conclude that the trial court's division of Husband's 401(k) assets in the marital balance sheet is unsupported by the findings.
ii. Credits Awarded to Husband
[¶29] Wife argues that the trial court's findings are inconsistent with its marital balance sheet. Husband provided evidence to the trial court of certain expenditures made during the pendency of the dissolution, including GAL fees, Wife's car payments, and living expenses. Husband asked the trial court to apply credit to Husband for these expenses in calculating the marital estate. The trial court issued the following finding on Husband's request:
35. The Court applies a credit to the Husband in the amount of Six Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($6,300) for monies paid to Laura Ellsworth, a credit to the Husband in the amount of Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2,392.50) for monies paid to Ms. Laurie Bumb. The Court, however, considers the amount of Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-One Dollars ($19,231) paid on the Wife's Chevrolet Blazer, and the sum of Twenty Thousand ($20,000) for monies paid for various amounts of provisional debt as evidenced by the Husband's Exhibits to be in the nature of maintenance given the economic circumstances and health of Wife.Appellant's App. Vol. II at 143 (emphasis added). As such, the marital balance sheet did not include the $19,231 amount but it did include the $20,000 provisional debt as a credit to Husband. This specific issue was raised by Wife in her motion to correct error. As noted, the trial court denied Wife's motion to correct error. We agree with Wife, if the $20,000 was "in the nature of maintenance given the economic circumstances of and health of Wife," then Husband should not have been given a credit for it. However, based upon the credit remaining on the marital balance sheet after the issue was directly addressed by Wife's motion to correct error, we cannot determine whether the marital balance sheet or the paragraph of decree, quoted above, was the trial court's intentions. Thus, the trial court's balance sheet is inconsistent with its findings, or its findings are inconsistent with the balance sheet.
c. Deviation From the 50/50 Presumption
[¶30] Husband claims that the trial court failed to include findings to justify its distribution of marital property. Our division of property statute provides in relevant part:
The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence concerning the following factors, that an equal division would not be just and reasonable:
* * *
(3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective . . .I.C. § 31-15-7-5.
[¶31] Here, the trial court initially ordered a 51/49 division of marital property in favor of Wife. Husband argues that the trial court made "no reference to deviating from the presumptive equal distribution" in its decree. Appellant's Br. at 18. This argument ignores the following finding:
Husband earns Thirty Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($30.45) per hour as a truck driver for ABF Freight, Inc. On occasion, the Husband has historically received additional income from "side jobs" to which he is no longer working. Wife was previously employed as a teacher's aid with the Evansville Vanderburgh County School Corporation, making approximately Thirteen ($13) Dollars per hour. Wife was also previously employed prior to that employment with Nyhart making Sixteen ($16) Dollars per hour. However, [t]he Husband's far superior earning capacity and the Wife's lack of earnings or earning ability due to her mental, emotional, and physical conditions which include, without limitation, having a pacemaker, high blood pressure, heart and stomach issues, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, experiencing psychotic episodes, numerous and frequent hospitalizations and in-house treatment (the most recent being in early January of this year), coupled with the Wife's lack of earnings history during the marriage, the Wife's lack of skills and inability to be gainfully employed.
These were the economic circumstances of the parties at the time the disposition of the marital assets and liabilities and were taken into consideration in the division of marital assets and liabilities.Appellant's App. Vol. II at 138-39 (emphasis added). Thus, we conclude the trial court provided sufficient support for its deviation from a 50/50 distribution.
Conclusion
[¶32] The trial court did not err in awarding Wife incapacity maintenance and declining to order Wife to pay child support for the Child. The trial court did not err in valuing Wife's jewelry and deviating from the presumptive 50/50 division of marital property. The trial court's marital balance sheet is inconsistent with its findings regarding Husband's 401(k) and the $20,000 provisional debt. We remand with instructions for the trial court to resolve these inconsistencies, amend either the marital balance sheet or the findings appropriately, and prepare a CSOW.
[¶33] Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Kenworthy, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.