MCILWAIN v. MCILWAIN (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Zachary McIlwain (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's dissolution decree dividing the estate amassed during his marriage to Kristin (McIlwain) McKinney (“Wife”).¹ Husband presents two issues on appeal, but we need address only one: Whether the trial court erroneously failed to consider Husband's timely request for unequal division of marital property. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Prior to marriage, Husband served two tours in Iraq with a Special Operations Unit and then was diagnosed with 80% disability for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Husband and Wife married in 2012 when he was 26 and she was 23. During the first year of marriage, Wife worked while Husband completed his undergraduate education at Ball State University.

[3] In 2013, Husband began working for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). That same year, Wife started law school. Husband paid all household expenses while Wife attended school full-time. In 2016, Wife graduated from law school with about $100,000 in student loans, was admitted to the Indiana Bar, and entered private practice of law. During the succeeding years, Husband continued to pay most expenses, while Wife paid the electric bill, her car payment, the homeowner association dues, and pet expenses. Wife also made payments on her student loans according to an income-based repayment plan.

[4] Over time, Husband worked his way up to being a senior compliance examiner at the FDIC, while Wife worked at private law firms. Throughout the marriage, Husband earned about $15,000 more annually than Wife. In June 2022, Husband refinanced the mortgage on the marital residence and removed Wife's name from the mortgage, but he left her name on the deed to the residence. As a result of the refinance, the parties received a cash payout: Husband used $61,553 to pay credit card debt and a car loan, and Wife received $44,061 in cash.

[5] Wife filed for dissolution of marriage in December 2022. In March 2023, Husband went on unpaid medical leave from the FDIC due to his PTSD. Because Wife had been paying a monthly income-based repayment amount on her student loans that was smaller than the interest being accrued, Wife's student loan balance had increased to over $200,000. At the time of divorce, Husband still had approximately $37,000 in student loans from his education.

[6] The court held a final hearing on February 7, 2024. At the conclusion of the final hearing, Wife's counsel indicated she had a proposed order to submit, and the court instructed her to “electronically file that” and also email a copy to the court's bailiff. (Tr. Vol. II at 97-98.) The trial court invited both parties to file proposed orders by “close of business Friday the 16th,” meaning February 16, 2024. (Id. at 99.) On February 16, 2024, Husband timely filed his proposed decree contending that a 50-50 division of assets was unreasonable and outlining the basis for unequal division. (See Appellant's App. Vol. II at 150-155) (copy of proposed decree and affidavits affirming filing, which were attached to motion to correct error).²

[7] On February 29, 2024, the trial court ordered a 50/50 division of marital assets after noting that Wife had requested a 50/50 division and Husband “did not formally make a request for an unequal division.” (Appellant's App. Vol. II at 136.) The trial court assigned Wife's student loan debt to Wife and then also assigned many of Husband's assets to Wife to effectuate a 50/50 division of the marital estate. Husband filed a motion to correct errors, which the trial court did not address.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Husband appeals following the denial of his motion to correct error. We review the denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion, which occurs “when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Watson, 70 N.E.3d 380, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (internal citations omitted).

[9] We also review a trial court's division of marital assets for an abuse of discretion. Roetter v. Roetter, 182 N.E.3d 221, 225 (Ind. 2022). “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. “The party challenging the ‘trial court's division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute.’ ” Id. (quoting Wanner v. Hutchcroft, 888 N.E.2d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). “[W]e focus on what the trial court did and not what it could have done.” Alifimoff v. Stuart, 192 N.E.3d 987, 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. Id.

[10] In dissolution proceedings, the division of property is a two-step process. Smith v. Smith, 136 N.E.3d 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. The marital estate includes all of 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. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. Then, when dividing the marital estate, the trial court is to “presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. The presumption that equal division is just and reasonable “may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence” of the statutory factors. Id.

[11] In its March 1, 2024, order dividing the parties’ marital estate, the trial court found “Husband did not formally make a request for an unequal division or deviation of a 50/50 division.” (Appellant's App. Vol. II at 136.) Based thereon, the trial court divided the estate equally between Husband and Wife. However, the trial court's finding is incorrect. Husband's Proposed Decree of Dissolution, which was filed on February 16, 2024, clearly requests unequal division and proposes specific allocations that deviate from equal division. (Id. at 150-155.) This proposed order was filed timely in accordance with the deadline set by the trial court at the final hearing. (See Tr. Vol. II at 99-100.)

[12] While the trial court was not required to find Husband had rebutted the presumption that an equal division was just and reasonable under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4, the trial court abused its discretion by ignoring that the argument had been made at all. By erroneously finding that no such request was made, the trial court failed to engage with Husband's substantive arguments for unequal division. This error requires us to reverse the trial court's final order and remand for the court to reconsider how to divide the marital estate.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court erred by failing to recognize and consider Husband's timely request for unequal division of marital property. We accordingly must reverse the trial court's order and remand for the court to reconsider how to divide the marital estate.

[14] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court's final order “restored” Wife's maiden name. (Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 142.)

2.   We note neither party's Appendix contained a file-stamped copy of Husband's proposed decree. Nevertheless, in response to Husband's motion to correct error, Wife filed a “Statement in Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Correct Error” (Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 156), in which Wife acknowledged: “Wife does not dispute that Husband submitted such proposed order.” (Id. at 158.)Nor did the Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”), which was certified as “True and Complete” by the trial court clerk, (id. at 7), contain an entry indicating either Husband or Wife had filed a proposed order between the hearing on February 7, 2024, and the trial court's issuance of the decree on March 1, 2024. The only filing indicated on the CCS was a change of address for Wife's counsel, which was filed on February 27, 2024. (Id. at 6.) In contrast, the Odyssey docket for the trial court cause indicates Husband's proposed order was filed on February 16, 2024. We do not know why this discrepancy exists between the Odyssey docket and the trial court's CCS, but we urge the trial court to insure the accuracy of its official records.

May, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.