William Dycus, Appellant v. Lidiya Dycus, Appellee (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] William Dycus (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's decree dissolving his marriage to Lidiya Dycus (“Wife”) and argues the court erred in determining the amount of his equalization payment. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Husband and Wife were married on June 20, 2020, and have one child together. On September 25, 2023, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties executed “Agreed Stipulations” which addressed child support ¹ and the division of certain assets. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 8. The stipulations provided that the parties would each keep the vehicles in their possession and the bank and retirement accounts in their respective names. In a section titled “Real Estate,” the stipulations stated: “Parties agree that the residence located at 3310 Graceland Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46208 [ ] is marital property. Husband shall retain sole and exclusive possession of the Graceland property and be responsible for all costs associated with the marital residence.” Id. at 10. The section also stated: “Parties further agree that all property currently owned by Husband or that Husband has interest, Husband shall retain sole and exclusive possession of that residence.” Id. In a section titled “Equalization Payment,” the stipulations stated: “Parties do not have an agreement as to the amount and if an equalization payment is owed.” Id. at 11.

[3] On March 10, 2025, the court held a final dissolution hearing. Wife's counsel stated “we'd ask that Court [ ] hear summary testimony and my client agrees for my presentation to incorporate what her testimony would be today in summary fashion,” and Husband's counsel stated “the same for my client.” Transcript Volume II at 4. The transcript is very brief. The court admitted stipulated exhibits. Wife's Exhibit 1 consists of a spreadsheet containing her summary of the marital assets and debts. Under “Real Property,” the spreadsheet lists four assets: “3310 Graceland Property,”² “1301 W 30th Street,”³ “Anderson Properties,”⁴ and “1741 Morris Street.”⁵ Exhibits Volume I at 3. The spreadsheet includes values for vehicles, accounts, automobile loans, and credit card debts. Under “Property Equalization Payment,” the spreadsheet states “PEP Required to Equalize Estate @ 50/50” and the sum of $294,975. Id. at 4.

[4] Wife's Exhibit 2 contains a property record card for 1301 W 30th Street.⁶ Wife's Exhibit 4 contains a land contract pursuant to which Husband purchased property on Graceland Avenue for $45,900 in October 2019. The land contract stated the property was “commonly known as: 3310 Graceland Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46208 (Includes Extra Lot 3308 Graceland Ave).” Exhibits Volume I at 10. The land contract provided that Husband would pay $9,180 as a down payment and pay the balance with interest in monthly installments. Wife's Exhibit 5 contains a property record card for 3308 Graceland Avenue indicating that Husband sold the parcel in January or February of 2020. Husband's Exhibit A contains a property record card for 3310 Graceland Avenue which included an assessed value of $82,100 for 2023. Husband's Exhibit C contains a property record card for a property on Beecher Street indicating that Husband purchased the property for $9,000 in 2018 and sold it for $150,000 in 2022. Husband's Exhibit D contains a property record card for 1741 W Morris Street indicating that Husband purchased the property for $51,900 in December 2019 and sold it for $115,000 in November 2023.

[5] Wife's counsel stated:

[Y]ou have at minimum four separate properties. You have the 3310 Graceland ․ That was the marital residence. So, the parties lived in that for residence for about a year and a half. It was purchased on [a] land contract with an attached property on that. [H]usband fixed that up. They both fixed it up and then they moved in and they lived in there until the separation on September 2023. Our position is that the Graceland property in its entirety should be considered for [sic] marital asset and the Graceland property should be divided as such. While this matter has been pending, there was a tax sale ․ in amount [of] about 3,600 ․ He has approximately a year to redeem that ․ amount. He would be paying that tax lien. He'll retain possession of that house. There is no mortgage on that house.

[W]ife's request today is going to be that the Graceland property should be sold and the proceeds from that house should be split equally․ [W]e concede that the 1301 West 30th street property was purchased prior to the marriage․ That is a separate property. The argument from the other side is that property should be excluded. We're not asking for any right or title, but again, the value of that property could be one of the factors [t]he Court could determine how to split the actual, the marital estate. You also have [H]usband who entered into a contract with a wife's family through a company, [ ] Sunshine and Tony Realty Services where they purchased land up in Anderson and Anderson properties and that still remains and he has a percentage interest as part of that part of that company. We also have a 1741 Morris Street address, which ․ after the separation was subsequently sold.

* * * * *

At the end of the day, ․ I won't belabor the point. As you'll see in our balance sheet, the equalization could be dramatically higher, [ ] based on the estimated values on the property and they're nothing more than estimations. We didn't do an [sic] appraisals of these properties. That's why we're coming in with the Graceland property saying just sell that property, which is a marital residence and divide it equally. Exhibit one is just a balance sheet. It does ․ include other accounts and debts ․

* * * * *

There is a, referred to the Sunshine and to realtor. He's merely a manager of that company. The other two individuals are Ms., uh, wife's family. Those are the properties ․ that are owned up in Anderson.

* * * * *

Ultimately, [W]ife is trying to take a simple approach here and saying, with all that being said, regardless of [t]he Court's findings of excluding property, including property values included, we're just asking that the Graceland property be sold, [H]usband be ordered to pay the ․ outstanding taxes ․ and the Graceland property be sold with the mutually agreed upon real estate agent and the funds from that Graceland property would be split at the time of closing, checks dispersed to both parties. The reason we're asking for a separate realtor, again, is one of the businesses that husband owns is a realtor company.

Transcript Volume II at 5-10.

[6] Husband's counsel argued “this was a short-term marriage” and “all of the [ ] properties that were mentioned today were acquired prior to the [ ] marriage.” Id. at 11. Husband's counsel stated that Husband sold a property on Beecher Street, which he had acquired prior to the marriage, and that he used the proceeds to pay off the property on Graceland Avenue and that Wife “only resided in that property for approximately a year and some change from the time that it was paid in full until the time that she filed for divorce.” Id. at 12. Husband's counsel also stated “[H]usband provided [ ] for everything within the marriage” and “any of the other businesses, there have been no evaluations.” Id. Husband requested a “70/30 split” of the marital property in his favor. Id.

[7] The court issued a dissolution decree and found that “[t]he presumptive equal division of the marital estate is just and reasonable.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 7. It ordered Husband to make a cash equalization payment in the amount of $294,975.

Discussion

[8] Before addressing Husband's arguments, we note that Wife did not file an appellee's brief. When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing arguments, and we apply a less stringent standard of review, that is, we may reverse if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Bixler v. Delano, 185 N.E.3d 875, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Prima facie is defined as “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Id. (citation omitted). This rule was established so that we might be relieved of the burden of controverting the arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden properly rests with the appellee. Id. at 878.

[9] Husband argues that the values used by the trial court for the properties on Graceland Avenue and 30th Street were not supported by the evidence and that there is no support for the value used in Wife's spreadsheet for his “interest in the family business Sunshine, or as Wife referred to it as ‘Anderson Properties.’ ” Appellant's Brief at 15. He maintains the court erred in dividing the marital property, arguing the evidence “was uncontroverted that [he] brought all of the real estate property in contention (Graceland and 30th Street) into the marriage, which makes up almost the entirety of the marital estate,” “[t]he marriage was a short-term marriage,” and “there was no evidence provided at trial as to the economic circumstances or the earning ability of either party.” Id. at 18-19. Husband argues the court “erred in awarding Wife $294,975 when [she] only asked for $75,500.” Id. at 20. He maintains, “Wife requested that she receive half of the marital residence” and “the Graceland property was worth $151,000 in her balance spreadsheet.” Id.

[10] The parties agreed that the proceedings at the final dissolution hearing would be conducted in summary fashion. “Summary proceedings function to efficiently resolve disputes by allowing parties and the court to forego the use of formal rules of procedure and evidence and instead allow the court to base its findings and conclusions upon the arguments of counsel and limited evidence.” Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733, 739 (Ind. 2015). “Summary proceedings commonly take place when parties are not disputing essential facts, but rather the legal outcome compelled by those facts.” Id.

[11] We review a trial court's division of marital property for an abuse of discretion. Wilson v. Wilson, 205 N.E.3d 238, 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). The trial court must divide the marital property in a just and reasonable manner, including property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before the final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. The “one pot” theory prohibits the exclusion of any asset from the scope of the court's power to divide and award. Wilson, 205 N.E.3d at 241. We review the valuation of property for an abuse of discretion. Goossens v. Goossens, 829 N.E.2d 36, 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Marital property includes both assets and liabilities. Capehart v. Capehart, 705 N.E.2d 533, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied.

[12] Ind. Code § 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 disposition 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.

[13] The record reveals that Husband and Wife were married in June 2020 and that Wife filed her petition for dissolution in September 2023. Wife's summary spreadsheet included an asset titled “Anderson Properties” as the most valuable marital asset. Exhibits Volume I at 3. Wife's counsel stated that Husband “entered into a contract with a wife's family through a company, [ ] Sunshine and Tony Realty Services where they purchased land up in Anderson,” indicated “he has a percentage interest ․ of that company,” and later stated “[h]e's merely a manager of that company.” Transcript Volume II at 6, 9. The parties did not present any evidence to support the stated value of, or Husband's interest in, that business or its assets.

[14] With respect to the properties on Graceland Avenue, 30th Street, and Morris Street, Wife did not introduce appraisals of the properties. Wife's counsel specifically stated that the amounts in Wife's summary spreadsheet were “nothing more than estimations” and “[w]e didn't do [ ] appraisals of these properties.” Id. at 7. There is no dispute that Husband acquired the properties before the marriage. Husband purchased the property on 30th Street in 2013, the property on Graceland Avenue in October 2019, and the property on Morris Street in December 2019. With respect to the property on Graceland Avenue, Husband made a down payment at the time of the purchase and paid the balance with proceeds from the sale of a property on Beecher Street, which he also acquired prior to the marriage.

[15] Wife's summary listed “3310 Graceland Property” as a marital asset and included a net value of $151,000 for the property. Exhibits Volume I at 3. At the final hearing, Wife's counsel acknowledged that the amounts included in her summary were “based on the estimated values on the property” and then stated “[t]hat's why we're coming in with the Graceland property saying just sell that property ․ and divide it equally.” Transcript Volume II at 7. Wife's counsel later stated that “regardless of [t]he Court's findings of excluding property, including property values included, we're just asking that the Graceland property be sold ․ and the funds ․ be split.” Id. at 10. Wife valued the marital residence on Graceland Avenue at $151,000, and one-half of that amount is $75,500.

[16] In light of the record, the duration of the parties’ marriage, and the factors in Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5, including that Husband acquired the properties on Graceland Avenue, 30th Street, Morris Street, and Beecher Street before the marriage, we conclude that Husband has established a prima facie case of error and rebutted the presumption that an equal division of the marital property is just and reasonable. Given that Wife's request was for an equal division of the marital residence and the lack of evidence to support any other values of the assets, we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended decree which orders Husband to make a cash equalization payment to Wife in the amount of $75,500.

[17] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The stipulations provided that Husband would pay child support of $100 per week pursuant to an attached child support worksheet, and the attached worksheet included the amounts of $1,395 as Husband's weekly gross income and $697 as Wife's weekly gross income.

2.   The spreadsheet includes a value of $151,000 and stated “Estimate.” Exhibits Volume I at 3.

3.   The spreadsheet includes a value of $140,000 and stated “Estimate.” Exhibits Volume I at 3.

4.   With respect to the “Anderson Properties,” the spreadsheet includes the note “Residual Values; Third interest,” indicates a “NET Value” of $500,000, and includes an amount of $166,667 in Husband's marital property. Exhibits Volume I at 3.

5.   The spreadsheet includes a value of $115,000 and stated “Sale.” Exhibits Volume I at 3.

6.   The property record card includes an assessed value of $138,800 in 2023 and indicates that Husband purchased the property in January 2013 for $131,740.60.

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.