Chad Handschu, Appellant v. Elli Handschu, Appellee (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Chad Handschu (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's valuation and division of marital property. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Husband and Elli Handschu (“Wife”) were married in November 2021. There were no children born to the marriage. On November 8, 2024, Husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. On June 27, 2025, the trial court held a final hearing. Wife introduced a letter dated December 13, 2024, from a real estate broker stating that, in its current condition, the value of the marital residence is $200,000. She introduced financial statements showing that the balance in Husband's 401(k) as of September 2024 was $93,713.40 and that he had funds as of December 2024 of $17,633.81 in an IRA. She also introduced statements showing that, in December 2024, she had a total of approximately $33,932 in retirement funds. Husband introduced evidence that, in November 2022, the balance of his 401(k) was $45,784.09.

[3] Husband testified that he purchased the marital residence in 2016 for $85,000 and that he paid the mortgage, homeowner's insurance, utilities, and property taxes. He indicated Wife began to live with him in the late Spring of 2018. When asked, “[w]as there ever a change prior to the marriage of who paid all of the household expenses,” Husband answered “No,” and when asked, “[w]as there ever a joint account,” he answered “No.” Transcript Volume II at 15. He testified that, starting in November 2023, Wife gave him $320 per month for one year, or $3,840 in total. When asked, “other than that 3,840, in the entirety of your relationship, did she ever contribute any other significant money,” he replied, “Not, no.” Id. at 16. Also, when asked “[$]45,784.09. Is that your 401(k) value at the time that you got married,” he replied, “[i]t would be very close, yes.” Id. at 17. When asked, “the date on that Exhibit shows 2022, but you were married in 2021” and “[w]hy do you believe that this value represents an accurate value of your 401(k) balance at the time you got married,” Husband answered “in August I started a new job. I wasn't eligible for the 401(k) until six months after, so this would have been reflective of that initial deposit from the school corporation[’]s 401(k) into my new jobs’ [sic] 401(k).” Id.

[4] Husband indicated that the residence is worth $200,000, he made substantial improvements to the house, and he paid for the improvements. He indicated he “basically gutted it and redid it,” he “ripped out walls, took out basically every appliance, reworked the kitchen, took out floors, replaced floors, plumbing, electrical,” and he “did 90 percent of it and contracted out the rest of it.” Id. at 19. He testified he “paid for cabinetry, some initial electrician work, some tile work, and replacement of a couple of doors.” Id. at 20. When asked if Wife performed “any of the rehabilitation labor,” Husband replied “[p]ainting would be the extent,” and when asked, “[i]f you were to put a percentage on the amount of labor that you did for the rehabilitation ․ what would your estimate be,” he answered “5 to 10 percent on her side and the rest would be mine.” Id. at 21.

[5] Husband indicated the assessed value of the marital residence was $143,400 in 2021 and $156,700 in 2024. When asked “we've got a stipulated value ․ I think it's [a] drive by appraisal of $200,000” and “[d]o you think that's an accurate value for, market value for what you could sell the house for,” Husband answered “Yes.” Id. at 22. Husband's counsel then stated, “[w]hat we've done [is] take the 9 percent increase in assessed value and apply that to the market value to get what we think is a fair increase of [the] total valuation of your home” and “[s]o, if you take 9 percent times the 200,000 you get $18,000,” and asked “[d]o you believe that during your marriage, the home increased in value by $18,000,” and Husband replied, “Yes.” Id. at 23. He indicated the mortgage decreased during the same period by $6,035, and when asked “are you asking the Court to value the equity in your home for the three years you were married at $24,035,” he replied affirmatively. Id. He indicated Wife earned about $48,000 and he earned $75,000 annually.

[6] On cross-examination, Husband indicated that Wife was included in the process of purchasing the home and was in college at the time. He stated that his father paid for half the cost of the cabinets and that Wife helped with painting. He indicated that an island was placed in the kitchen, a bathroom was remodeled, the garage was partially re-roofed, and a patio was built onto the house and that Wife did not help with the labor. He indicated some landscaping pavers were gifts from Wife's family. Wife's counsel referred to the broker's letter stating the value of the residence was $200,000 and asked, “you don't have any dispute, as you said earlier, that the house is worth [ ] at least that today, right,” Husband replied “Correct.” Id. at 35. When asked, “[w]ould it surprise you to find that maybe there's information out there online that would suggest it's worth more than 200,000,” Husband testified, “I think if you look at Zillow or something in that nature, probably.” Id. When asked, “[i]f I told you that there is a $215,000.00 value on Zillow, does that sound pretty consistent with what you would expect,” he replied, “I think so, yeah.” Id. at 36.

[7] On redirect examination, Husband testified that the funds in his IRA were earned entirely prior to the marriage but that he was not asking the court to set the funds aside to him. He indicated that Wife's retirement funds were earned “[t]hroughout her ․ teaching career is my assumption,” “a portion of it was probably earned between 2018 and 2021,” and he did not know how much of it was earned during that period. Id. at 50. Husband testified that he purchased “[e]very appliance” including the fridge, washer, and dryer prior to the marriage. Id. at 52. With respect to the value of the residence, the court stated, “I accept the [$]215,000 is what he thought the value was.” Id. at 53. Husband's counsel stated: “Judge, as a point of clarity. He didn't say that he thought it was a fair valuation. He said that's probably what Zillow would say, which is not the same thing.” Id.

[8] Wife testified that she worked as a kindergarten teacher and Husband worked at a bank. She testified she was hired in the summer of 2018 and was going into her eighth year of teaching. When asked about the time she spent at the marital residence after it was purchased, she testified, “I spent a lot of time there,” “[e]ven when I was in college I'd come almost every weekend,” “I helped remodel the house,” and “I looked at it as an investment for our future together.” Id. at 60. She testified, “[a]fter graduation, ․ which would have been in May of 2018, that is when my apartment lease was up and [Husband], my mom, and stepdad helped me move into [Husband's] house and that's where I began living.” Id. at 62. She testified, “at first, I felt like [Husband] was [ ] wanting me to get on my feet with starting a job and didn't maybe expect me to contribute as much. But then as I continued teaching I started [ ] buying groceries more, picking things up, doing subscriptions, toilet paper, bottles of water, ․ [and] help with gas.” Id. at 62. She indicated that she purchased cleaning supplies, decorations, and some furniture and that she “probably did all of the painting except the ceiling.” Id. at 65. She testified, “[w]e did have some conversations around a joint account, but that never happened” and “I would take about 300, sometimes 450 out of my checking to give to [Husband].” Id. at 62-63.

[9] In her spreadsheet summarizing the marital estate to be divided, Wife valued the marital residence at $200,000, valued the mortgage on the residence at $68,907, included a value for Husband's 401(k) of $93,713, listed other assets and debts including Husband's IRA of $17,633 and Wife's retirement funds totaling $33,932, valued the total assets and debts at $351,429, and determined that, to effectuate an equal division, Husband pay Wife an equalization payment of $96,832. In his spreadsheet summarizing the marital estate to be divided, Husband included a value with respect to the marital residence of the “Net Increase of Equity” during the marriage of $24,035,¹ included a value for Husband's 401(k) of $47,929.31,² listed other assets and debts including Husband's IRA and Wife's retirement funds, indicated the total value of the assets and debts to be divided was $175,067.02, and determined that, to effectuate an equal division of those assets and debts, Husband pay Wife an equalization payment of $14,129.54.

[10] On July 10, 2025, the trial court issued a decree of dissolution of marriage. The court found the parties cohabitated for approximately four years prior to the marriage. It valued the marital residence at $215,000, awarded the residence to Husband, awarded Wife her retirement funds, awarded Husband his 401(k) and IRA subject to an equalization payment, and distributed other assets. The court stated that it believed “a 50/50 division of the assets and debts is appropriate,” “[i]n order to carry out said division, Husband shall tender to Wife an amount equal to $89,426,”³ and “[s]aid amount shall be paid by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order and/or transfer of ownership of funds from Husband's ․ 401K.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 92.

Discussion

[11] Husband argues the trial court erred in (A) valuing the marital residence and (B) dividing the marital property.

A. Marital Residence

[12] Husband argues that Wife presented evidence that the marital residence has a value of $200,000 and the court erred in valuing the residence at $215,000. He argues that he “never agreed to the value of $215,000” and “he agreed that the value would be what he would expect on Zillow.” Appellant's Brief at 18. Wife argues that Husband “acknowledged that [the marital residence] may possibly be worth $215,000.” Appellee's Brief at 14.

[13] We review a trial court's valuation of an asset in a marriage dissolution for an abuse of discretion. Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152, 154 (Ind. 2010). The court has not abused its discretion if sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences support that valuation. Id.

[14] The record reveals that, while at one point during cross-examination, when asked, “[i]f I told you that there is a $215,000.00 value on Zillow, does that sound pretty consistent with what you would expect,” Husband replied, “I think so, yeah,” Transcript Volume II at 35-36, the parties did not agree or stipulate that the residence had a value shown by Zillow. Rather, the evidence regarding the value of the marital residence consisted of the valuation provided by real estate broker Schwering that was specifically stipulated to by the parties. Specifically, Wife introduced a letter by Schwering, stating that he inspected the marital residence, “[t]he interior appears to be in good condition,” “[t]he exterior needs some work,” and, “[a]fter checking comparable properties in the area and as a licensed real estate broker in the [S]tate of Indiana, [i]n the current condition the value is $200,000.” Exhibits Volume III at 21. When asked “we've got a stipulated value that [Wife's counsel] had done of ․ an appraisal, drive by appraisal of $200,000,” Husband replied “Correct,” and when asked “[d]o you think that's an accurate ․ market value for what you could sell the house for,” he answered “Yes.” Transcript Volume II at 22. Based upon this record, we reverse and remand for the entry of a finding that the marital residence has a value of $200,000 for purposes of dividing the marital property.

B. Division of Marital Property

[15] Husband argues the trial court “erroneously included all of [his] premarital assets, including substantial equity in his home and retirement assets owned prior to marriage, in the parties’ equal division.” Appellant's Brief at 11. He contends that “[i]t wasn't until 2023 that [Wife] began paying anything substantial toward the property from her own income.” Id. at 13. He argues that, while the parties’ cohabitation can be a consideration, “[i]n this case, unlike many other similar situations, [Wife] was not the homemaker or caretaker for their children.” Id. at 14. Wife argues that “Husband's financial contributions may have exceeded that of Wife's,” “but ․ there existed a substantial disparity in incomes,” and she “did make monthly payments to Husband totaling anywhere from $300-450 during a portion of the marriage.” Appellee's Brief at 9-10.

[16] We review a claim that the trial court improperly divided marital property for an abuse of discretion. Eye v. Eye, 849 N.E.2d 698, 701 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The 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.

[17] 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 and that this presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents evidence that an equal division would not be just and reasonable, and it identifies factors for consideration, including: (1) the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property; (2) the extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse before the marriage or through inheritance or gift; (3) the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective; (4) the conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property; and (5) the earnings or earning ability of the parties. A court “may consider periods of cohabitation followed by marriage in determining a proper distribution of the marital estate.” Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487, 495 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Larkins v. Larkins, 685 N.E.2d 88, 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997); Chestnut v. Chestnut, 499 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986)).

[18] Here, the parties presented evidence regarding the acquisition and value of the marital assets. Husband testified that he purchased the marital residence in 2016 for $85,000, that he paid the mortgage, homeowner's insurance, utilities, and property taxes throughout the parties’ cohabitation and marriage, and that, starting in November 2023, Wife gave him $320 per month for one year. He indicated that, other than the $320 contributions, Wife did not contribute any significant money. Wife worked full time as a teacher during the parties’ cohabitation and marriage. The parties testified at length regarding the improvements made to the house after its purchase in 2016, who financed the improvements, and who performed the work. While Wife painted the walls, Husband completed or paid for the vast majority of the improvements. Husband estimated that he contributed 90 to 95 percent of the labor. The parties also testified regarding their employment and when they accumulated their retirement funds.

[19] While the parties cohabitated for several years before they were married and Husband earns more than Wife, after considering the factors above, especially the parties’ respective contributions to the acquisition of the marital property, and in light of the duration of their cohabitation and marriage, we conclude that Husband presented evidence which rebutted the presumption that an equal division of the marital property is just and reasonable. See In re Marriage of Stetler, 657 N.E.2d 395, 397-399 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (although wife had lower earning capacity, unequal division of assets was merited based on duration of marriage and fact that substantially all assets were acquired through husband's efforts, enabling wife to further her education and accumulate earnings), trans. denied; Dahlin v. Dahlin, 397 N.E.2d 606, 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (“[A] rational basis for the award of one-half of the property to each party is not at all apparent․ The short duration of the marriage, the substantial property and financial contributions of [husband], the extremely limited contribution of [wife], and [husband's] imminent retirement ․ are all circumstances which militate against the division made below.”).

[20] We conclude, based on the factors above and the record, that an appropriate division of the marital estate is to award Husband the value of his 401(k) and the net equity in the marital residence at the time the parties were married and to equally divide the remaining assets and debts. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order that Husband pay an equalization payment in the amount of $89,426 and remand for a redetermination of any equalization payment and the entry of an amended dissolution decree consistent with this opinion.

[21] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The spreadsheet included a calculation for “Net Increase of Equity” during the marriage of $24,035 by adding an “Increase in Value During Marriage” of $18,000 and the “Decrease in Mortgage ($74,942-$68,907)” of $6,035. Exhibits Volume III at 4.

2.   The spreadsheet included a “Calculation of Husband's 401(k) Earned During the Marriage” which subtracted the “Value at Marriage 2021” of $45,784.09 from the “Value at Divorce Filing 2024” of $93,713.40 for a total of $47,929.31. Exhibits Volume III at 4.

3.   The trial court's order in the record does not include a written summary of the values it assigned to the parties’ assets and debts, the total value of the marital estate, or its calculations in determining the equalization payment.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.