Linda Leonardo, Appellant-Defendant v. Daniel Kajer, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Linda Leonardo (“Wife”) appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct error alleged to have occurred in the trial court's order dissolving her marriage to Daniel Kajer (“Husband”). Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion when it:

1. divided the marital property; and

2. denied Wife's request for spousal maintenance.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Husband and Wife were married on March 28, 2014. Wife was approximately forty years old when the parties married, and Husband was approximately sixty years old. Prior to the marriage, Wife had been a music teacher for a local school district but she stopped working in 2003 when she started receiving Social Security Disability payments because of several medical conditions. Husband had owned several construction companies since the 1980s, and at the time of marriage, he owned a construction business, D&K Builders, which had been in operation since 2010.

[3] Both parties brought assets into the marriage. Prior to the marriage, Wife owned property on North Drive in Knox, Indiana (“North Drive Property”). Sometime after the parties were married, the North Drive Property was listed in both parties’ names. The North Drive Property was the marital residence. Wife also owned a vacant lot on which the parties would add a pole barn during the marriage (“Lot 1”).¹ Husband's company, which was formed prior to the marriage, D&K Builders, had many construction vehicles. In addition, prior to the marriage, Husband had accrued a substantial sum of Menards rebates from purchases he made for jobs through D&K Builders. There were no children born of the marriage.

[4] Husband filed for dissolution on December 4, 2019. On January 9, 2020, Wife filed a motion for a temporary provisional order, asking the trial court to award her temporary sole possession of the North Drive Property, temporary maintenance, and reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, she asked the trial court to issue an order to protect the parties’ assets and liabilities pending the final dissolution order. The trial court did not rule on her motion. On March 25, 2022, Wife filed a renewed motion for a temporary provisional order that requested the same relief. The trial court denied Wife's renewed motion for a temporary provisional order on March 28, 2022.

[5] The trial court then held a bifurcated final dissolution hearing. Husband presented his evidence on April 6, 2023. Wife began presenting her case on April 6, 2023, but the hearing had to be continued because Wife's oxygen tank ran out of power. The trial court held the continued hearing on May 10, 2023.

[6] During those hearings, the parties provided evidence regarding the value of five parcels of real estate the parties owned. All five were free of mortgages or loans, and Husband had the parcels appraised prior to the hearing. The North Drive Property had an appraised value of $190,000. Another home on Orchard Drive in Knox, Indiana, (“the Orchard Drive Property”) had an appraised value of $180,000. The Orchard Drive Property was titled in both parties’ names. Lot 1 held a pole barn ² and was appraised at $50,000. The two final parcels were empty lots with appraised values of $16,000 (“Lot 2”)³ and $26,000 (“Lot 3”).⁴ Husband asked the trial court to award him the Orchard Drive Property, Lot 2, and Lot 3. He asked the trial court to award Wife the North Drive Property and Lot 1. Wife challenged the appraised value of the North Drive Property and testified the property needed a lot of work. In contrast, Husband told the trial court he had renovated the North Drive Property during the marriage. Wife asked the trial court to award her the North Drive Property, the pole barn from Lot 1, and an $80,000 equalization payment that she believed would “equalize the value of all the property[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 80.) She asked the trial court to order Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 sold with the proceeds divided between the parties.

[7] The parties had individual and joint bank accounts. Husband provided evidence that the balance of the parties’ joint bank account at the time Husband filed for dissolution was $5,600.00. Husband testified he had not used the joint account since that valuation date and Wife confirmed that she used the account for “[a] lot of medicine co-pays, doctor co-pays[,] [k]erosene to heat my house because [I] can't afford to heat the whole thing.” (Id. at 77.) Husband had an individual bank account, but he did not provide evidence of the balance at the time he filed for dissolution. Wife testified she had an individual account with a balance of $342.71 in December 2019 and a savings account held jointly with her mother that had a balance of $1,932.70 as of January 2020. The parties did not dispute the account balances and asked the trial court to allow them to keep their individual accounts. Husband stated he had no objection to Wife having sole ownership of the joint account.

[8] Husband testified he had a business account for his business, D&K Builders, that had a balance of $101,000.00 when he filed for dissolution. However, shortly thereafter, Husband withdrew that money, closed the account, and deposited $94,000 into a new business account for D&K Builders. Husband indicated he used the business account primarily for business expenses, but he also used the money for personal expenses. Husband was unable to approximate the amounts he used for business or personal expenses.

[9] Husband asked the trial court to award him sole ownership of the business account because he owned the business and Wife had not substantially contributed to the business. Husband testified Wife “typed up some bids and took the information from payroll when it was sent to us.” (Id. at 15.) Regarding payroll, Husband indicated Wife would receive payroll numbers from the payroll company, Husband would write the checks, and Wife would “put [the payroll checks] in envelopes” for him. (Id.) Wife testified she thought the trial court should award her a portion of the business account because she “helped assist the business being profitable” (id. at 69) and some of the funds from the business account were used for “personal expenses during the marriage[.]” (Id. at 79.) Regarding the work she did for D&K Builders, Wife stated she “would handle any correspondence that needed to go to the accountant[,] ․ put all of the proposals on the computer[,] ․ [and] handle[d] the invoices.” (Id. at 68-9.)

[10] Regarding income, Husband testified he did not “work for free” and paid himself a wage from the D&K Builders account but did not give the specific amount he was paid. (Id. at 50.) Husband testified he had not paid income taxes since 2009 and agreed the payment of those back taxes was his sole responsibility. Wife testified she received “Social Security disability” income of $1,200.00 per month. (Id. at 71.)

[11] Wife had two retirement accounts from her former employer: one with a balance of $1,952.39 as of December 31, 2019, and the other with a balance of $828.20 as of December 31, 2019. Wife testified she had not withdrawn money from her retirement accounts and did not know when she would be able to do so. Wife also testified she received a portion of her ex-husband's pension as part of their property settlement, but she did not know its value. Husband did not have a retirement account. The parties agreed Wife would retain her retirement accounts.

[12] The parties also testified to approximate values of some other marital assets. Regarding the vehicles in the marital pot, Husband testified he drove a 2016 Ford F350 worth approximately $15,000, and Husband estimated the 2012 Ford F150 Wife drove was worth between $15,000 and $20,000. He indicated he had recently purchased a 1998 Mercury Marquis but did not give a value for that vehicle. Husband told the trial court about several recreational vehicles the parties owned during the marriage, such as a pontoon boat and two golf carts, again giving approximate values for those items, but Husband indicated he had sold those items after he filed for dissolution. Finally, Husband testified regarding several vehicles that were titled to him but were used as business vehicles with D&K Builders such as a dump truck, dump trailer, and backhoe.

[13] The parties also testified about $30,000 in Menards rebates that Husband used to construct the pole barn on Lot 1. The rebates were accumulated before and during the marriage when D&K Builders purchased supplies for clients. Both parties agreed the rebates were business assets that should be included in the valuation of D&K Builders, but Wife argued the value of D&K Builders also should be made part of the marital pot.

[14] As part of the dissolution, Wife asked for spousal maintenance because of her inability to work and the disparity between her earning capacity and Husband's earning capacity. Wife testified she suffered from “pulmonary vasculitis[.]” (Id. at 83.) She told the trial court that her medical visits, prescriptions, and hospitalizations were very expensive, but she did not give a dollar amount for those expenses. She testified she would need “long term care as [the condition] progresses” and “a double lung transplant [was] the only option” to address her condition but that she did not “know if [she] would qualify for that.” (Id. at 84.) When asked how much maintenance Wife was requesting, she stated, “if he was contributing $2,000 a month, if we split that 50-50, [$]1,000.” (Id. at 86.)

[15] On September 28, 2023, the trial court issued its order dissolving the party's marriage.⁵ The trial court awarded Wife the North Drive Property and Lot 1 and Husband the Orchard Drive Property, Lot 2, and Lot 3. In doing so, the trial court stated, “[t]his division of the real estate gives Wife real property valued at $240,000.00 and Husband real property valued at $222,000.00.” (App. Vol. II at 32.) The trial court ordered the parties to assume their own debts and hold the other harmless. The trial court stated the parties were to receive as their sole property any personal items.

[16] The trial court also awarded Husband ownership and possession of the 2016 Ford F350 and the 1998 Mercury Marquis, as well as “all construction vehicles in Husband's name or in the name of D&K Builders, LLC.” (Id. at 33.) The trial court gave Wife ownership and title of the 2012 Ford F150. The trial court awarded the parties sole ownership of their individual bank accounts and ordered the parties to close the joint bank account and “equally divide any remaining funds.” (Id. at 34.) Husband was given sole ownership of the D&K Builders bank account because “the court cannot determine how much of the funds belong to Husband and how much of that money is operating expenses.” (Id.) Wife retained sole ownership of her retirement and pension accounts.

[17] As to other marital assets, the trial court found and concluded:

17. The proceeds from the sale of the pontoon boat and golf carts are not taken into consideration as there was no evidence to dispute Husband's testimony of the sale of those items.

18. The court declines to find that either party dissipated marital assets prior to filing.

19. The Court does not place any value on the Menards Rebates. These Rebates were earned prior to marriage and by money spent on behalf of customers of D&K Builders. If anything, these rebates belong to those customers who purchased the materials that earned the rebates ․

20. Any tax liability owed during the marriage is a marital debt. Husband shall be responsible for all Federal and State Income Tax liabilities, penalties and interest for Tax Returns that should have been filed during the marriage and hold Wife harmless thereof [sic].

(Id. at 35.) Further, the trial court denied Wife's request for spousal maintenance:

12. Wife's request for maintenance is denied. The Court notes that the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed December 4, 2019 and Wife has supported herself during the pendency of this action. Wife is receiving $240,000.00 in real estate free from any mortgages or loans and will be receiving retirement funds from a previous marriage. Husband is almost 70 years of age and has had cancer twice. Husband has to retire at some point. Husband has no retirement accounts at this time and will presumably rely on Social Security to support himself.

(Id. at 34.) Finally, the trial court ordered Husband to pay $2,500 in Wife's attorney fees.

[18] On October 30, 2023, Wife filed a motion to correct error arguing the trial court's order was “contrary to the evidence that was provided[.]” (Id. at 38.) She challenged the portion of the trial court's findings that Husband did not dissipate marital assets, that Husband be awarded all business assets, and that Wife should not receive spousal maintenance. The trial court did not rule on Wife's motion to correct error and thus it was deemed denied on December 14, 2023.⁶

Discussion and Decision

[19] Wife contends the trial court erred in its division of the marital property and its failure to award spousal maintenance. She argues the trial court should have granted her motion to correct error. We review a trial court's denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion, reversing only when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or when the trial court has erred as a matter of law. Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 761 (Ind. 2013). We also consider the standard of review for the underlying ruling. B.A. v. D.D., 189 N.E.3d 611, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. Here, the underlying order is the trial court's dissolution order.

[20] We review a trial court's division of marital property and determination about spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Roetter v. Roetter, 182 N.E.3d 221, 225 (Ind. 2022). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is “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. We presume the trial court considered and complied with the applicable statutes when dividing property or awarding spousal maintenance, and the appellant must overcome this strong presumption to succeed on appeal. Id. We do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 228.

[21] When, as here, the trial court makes findings and conclusions sua sponte, we apply a two-tiered analysis whereby we first analyze whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings support the trial court's conclusions regarding the issues covered in the findings. McDaniel v. McDaniel, 150 N.E.3d 282, 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. We review issues not addressed by the trial court with a general judgment standard, under which “the judgment will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory consistent with the evidence.” Id. “It is not necessary that each and every finding be correct, and even if one or more findings are clearly erroneous, we may affirm the judgment if it is supported by other findings or is otherwise supported by the record.” Stone v. Stone, 991 N.E.2d 992, 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), aff'd on reh'g by Stone v. Stone, 4 N.E.3d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The trial court's order is clearly erroneous “when the appellate court's review of the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.” McDaniel, 150 N.E.3d at 289. We accept unchallenged findings as true, M.M. v. A.C., 160 N.E.3d 1133, 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), and we will affirm “if the unchallenged findings are sufficient to support the judgment.” Moriarty v. Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied.

1. Division of Property

[22] Wife argues the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the marital property without considering the earnings inequity between the parties. In dissolution proceedings, the division of property is a two-step process. Smith v. Smith, 136 N.E.2d 275, 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “First, the trial court must ascertain what property to include in the marital estate; second, the trial court must fashion a just and reasonable division of the marital estate.” Id. Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4 requires the trial court to divide the parties’ property whether it was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse during the marriage, or acquired by the joint efforts of the spouses. Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5 provides:

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:

(1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing.

(2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse:

(A) before the marriage; or

(B) through inheritance or gift.

(3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the dissolution of the property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell in the family residence for such periods as the court considers just to the spouse having custody of any children.

(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.

(5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to:

(A) a final division of property; and

(B) a final determination of the property rights of the parties.

[23] Wife contends the trial court abused its discretion when it did not consider the inequity between her income and Husband's income. However, neither party presented evidence regarding Husband's income except Husband's testimony that he paid himself out of the D&K Builders business account and that he did not “work for free[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 50.) Wife testified she received $1,200.00 in Social Security Disability but did not compare those earnings to those of Husband. Additionally, there were several marital assets about which the parties did not present evidence of value, such as business equipment, collectibles, and personal expenses Husband paid out of the D&K Builders account. As we explained recently in Dierckman v. Dierckman:

The “burden of producing evidence as to the value of the marital property rests squarely on the shoulders of the parties and their attorneys.” Galloway v. Galloway, 855 N.E.2d 302, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (quotation and citation omitted). “A valuation submitted by one of the parties is competent evidence of the value of property in a dissolution action and may alone support the trial court's determination in that regard.” Henderson v. Henderson, 139 N.E.3d 227, 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quotations and citations omitted).

225 N.E.3d 185, 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. Wife did not present evidence of Husband's income or the value of other marital assets, and thus she cannot demonstrate any error in the trial court's distribution of marital assets. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded marital assets to the parties. See Perkins v. Harding, 836 N.E.2d 295, 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“ ‘any party who fails to introduce evidence as to the specific value of the marital property at a dissolution hearing is estopped from appealing the distribution on the ground of trial court abuse of discretion based on that absence of evidence’ ”) (quoting In re Marriage of Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078, 1081 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)).

2. Spousal Maintenance

[24] Wife also argues the trial court abused its discretion when it did not award her spousal maintenance based on the income disparity of the parties. An award of spousal maintenance is intended to serve one of three purposes: “to assist an incapacitated spouse, to assist a custodial spouse under certain circumstances, or to assist a spouse in need of educational or vocational rehabilitation.” Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 225. Indiana Code section 31-15-7-2(1) provides:

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, the court may find that maintenance for the spouse is necessary during the period of incapacity, subject to further order of the court.

[25] We presume a trial court properly considered the statutory factors when fashioning a maintenance award, and we review such a decision for an abuse of discretion. Lloyd v. Lloyd, 755 N.E.2d 1165, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In fact, “[t]he presumption that the trial court correctly applied the law in making an award of spousal maintenance is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to the consideration of a case on appeal.” Luttrell v. Luttrell, 994 N.E.2d 298, 305 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). A trial court may also abuse its discretion if it “misinterprets the law or disregards evidence of factors listed in the controlling statute.” Id. The party seeking spousal maintenance bears the burden of proving entitlement to it. Lesley v. Lesley, 6 N.E.3d 963, 967 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[26] As noted above, the trial court found, regarding Wife's request for spousal maintenance:

12. Wife's request for maintenance is denied. The Court notes that the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed December 4, 2019 and Wife has supported herself during the pendency of this action. Wife is receiving $240,000.00 in real estate free from any mortgages or loans and will be receiving retirement funds from a previous marriage. Husband is almost 70 years of age and has had cancer twice. Husband has to retire at some point. Husband has no retirement accounts at this time and will presumably rely on Social Security to support himself.

(Id. at 34.) Wife presented evidence regarding her disability. She stated she suffered from “pulmonary vasculitis[,]” (Tr. Vol. II at 83), she would need “long term care as [the condition] progresses” and “a double lung transplant [was] the only option” to address her condition. (Id. at 84.) Wife used an oxygen machine to help her breathe. Wife received $1,200 in Social Security Disability income but testified it was difficult to both pay medical bills and heat her home. While that evidence suggests Wife was physically incapacitated to an extent that her ability to support herself was impacted, the controlling statute still gives the trial court the discretion to determine whether an award of maintenance is appropriate under all the circumstances. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-2(1) (“trial court may find” maintenance is necessary).

[27] In this case, Husband testified he was paid from his company D&K Builders for jobs, but the record does not indicate an amount or frequency of his income. The trial court required Husband to be responsible for over fifteen years of back taxes, which relieved Wife of that financial burden. The trial court considered the value of the unencumbered property Wife received as part of the dissolution decree–that she could choose to sell to obtain additional income – and noted her other sources of income including her Social Security benefits, personal retirement, and her ex-husband's retirement. Based on all these facts, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Wife's request for spousal maintenance. See, e.g., Pala v. Loubser, 943 N.E.2d 400, 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and thus trial court did not abuse its discretion in its decision regarding spousal maintenance), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[28] Wife has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the parties’ marital assets or denied Wife's request for spousal maintenance. Accordingly, we affirm.

[29] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record does not indicate whether this property was solely in Wife's name or owned jointly by the parties.

2.   Husband testified he used $30,000 in “rebate cards from Menards” to pay for the pole barn. (Tr. Vol. II at 47.)

3.   The record does not indicate whether this property was owned jointly by the parties.

4.   The record does not indicate whether this property was owned jointly by the parties.

5.   The trial court's order was signed July 18, 2023, but not distributed to the parties or entered in the Chronological Case Summary until September 28, 2023.

6.   Indiana Trial Rule 53.3(A) provides, in relevant part:In the event a court fails for forty-five (45) days to set a Motion to Correct Error for hearing, or fails to rule on a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (30) days after it was heard or forty-five (45) days after it was filed, if no hearing is required, the pending Motion to Correct Error shall be deemed denied.

May, Judge.

Judges Brown and Pyle concur. Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.