Brian Savilla, Appellant-Respondent v. Courtney Savilla, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brian Savilla (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's dissolution of his marriage to Courtney Robertson Savilla (“Wife”). Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion when valuing the personal property in Wife's possession and by excluding Wife's engagement ring from the marital estate. We disagree with Husband's arguments and, accordingly, affirm.

Issues

[2] Husband raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the engagement ring from the marital estate.

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when valuing personal property in Wife's possession.

Facts

[3] Husband and Wife were married in 2013. Wife is a physician, and Husband is a teacher. In August 2024, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and Husband filed a cross-petition. A final hearing on the petitions was held in June 2025. Wife argued that Husband had dissipated marital assets through his gambling, and Husband argued that he was entitled to rehabilitative maintenance.

[4] Wife estimated that household goods and furnishings in her possession were valued at $26,860. Wife testified that she obtained the values based upon “current resale on eBay and resale sites.” Tr. Vol. II p. 64. Wife testified that her jewelry cabinet and jewelry were valued at $5,570, and that valuation included her engagement ring. The trial court then stated, “I consider engagement rings gifts. I exclude them from the marital estate.” Tr. Vol. II p. 67. Wife valued the household goods and furnishings in Husband's possession at $9,400, and Husband did not contest that valuation. Regarding the parties’ vehicles, Wife valued Husband's truck at $35,405 ¹ and valued her vehicle at $1,602.93. Wife also submitted a proposed division of assets and requested an equal division of marital assets. Under Wife's calculation, the marital debts significantly exceeded the marital assets.

[5] Husband testified that the household goods and furnishings in Wife's possession were valued at $97,434.41. Husband testified that he valued the goods based upon the actual cost of the items. Husband valued the jewelry cabinet and jewelry at $9,000. Husband did not submit a proposed division of assets.

[6] The trial court issued a dissolution decree in July 2025. The trial court did not find that Husband had dissipated marital assets and denied Husband's request for rehabilitative maintenance. The trial court found that “[t]he evidence in this case does not rebut a 50/50 division of the marital estate.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 7. The trial court adopted “the listing of assets set out in” Wife's Exhibit 1. Id. But the trial court did not accept Wife's “valuations for the student loan or the 403(B) plan.” Id. Regarding the parties’ personal property, the trial court found:

6. The parties have provided differing evaluations on personal property of the marriage. Neither party has provided an appraisal of the marital personal property either party is receiving. [Husband] produced evidence of the purchase price of articles of personal property. Many of these items are several years old and are not worth close to what their purchase price was. [Wife] based her evaluation of the of [sic] value of the parties’ personal property on vague claims of comparisons to sales on E-Bay without supporting documentation. [Wife] is receiving a larger share of the parties’ personal property and shall keep all personal property currently in her possession. [Husband] shall keep and retain the personal property that was in his possession on the June 30, 2025 final hearing date.

7. Both parties should each receive their respective vehicles. [Husband] shall keep and retain his 2021 Dodge Ram truck. There is no lien on this truck. [Wife] has a 2024 BMW X-5 worth $61,145.00 with a $59,542.07 lien attached to it. [Wife] shall keep and retain her 2024 BMW X-5. The Court finds that the personal property and truck received by [Husband] is [sic] equal in value to the personal property and vehicle, the BMW, received by [Wife].

Id. at 8. The trial court found “there should be no equalization payments made in this case. The debts of the marriage are greater in value tha[n] the assets of the marriage.” Id. at 9. Husband now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Husband challenges the trial court's determination of the marital estate and valuation of certain marital assets. In adjudicating the parties’ dissolution of marriage, the trial court entered sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon. “ ‘As to the issues covered by the findings, we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.’ ” Hahn-Weisz v. Johnson, 189 N.E.3d 1136, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014)). “We reverse ‘the findings only if they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Adoption of I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164, 1169 (Ind. 2015)). “We review any remaining issues under the general judgment standard, under which we will affirm the judgment ‘if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287). “We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo.” Id. (quoting Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 761 (Ind. 2013)).

[8] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(b), the trial court “shall divide the property in a just and reasonable manner ․” We “presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence that an “equal division would not be just and reasonable.” See id. Here, the trial court found that the evidence did not rebut the presumption of an equal division of marital property, and Husband does not challenge this finding on appeal. Rather, Husband challenges only the trial court's alleged exclusion of Wife's engagement ring from the marital estate and valuation of the marital estate's personal property.

A. Determination of Marital Estate

[9] We first address Husband's argument that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Wife's engagement ring from the marital estate. “ ‘It is well settled that in a dissolution action, all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.’ ” Meyer v. East, 205 N.E.3d 1066, 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)). Specifically, Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(a) provides:

In an action for dissolution of marriage under IC 31-15-2-2, the court shall divide the property of the parties, whether:

(1) owned by either spouse before the marriage;

(2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right:

(A) after the marriage; and

(B) before final separation of the parties; or

(3) acquired by their joint efforts.

For purposes of dissolution, property means “all the assets of either party or both parties.” Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98. “Marital property includes both assets and liabilities.” Meyer, 205 N.E.3d at 1072 (quoting McCord v. McCord, 852 N.E.2d 35, 45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied).

[10] “ ‘The requirement that all marital assets be placed in the marital pot is meant to insure [sic] that the trial court first determines that value before endeavoring to divide property.’ ” Id. (quoting Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d at 110). “ ‘Indiana's ‘one pot’ theory prohibits the exclusion of any asset in which a party has a vested interest from the scope of the trial court's power to divide and award.’ ” Id. (quoting Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d at 110).

[11] The engagement ring was marital property and was required to be included in the marital pot. Wife concedes that “had the trial court ‘excluded’ the engagement ring from the marital estate, then technically, there would be an issue on appeal.” Appellee's Br. p. 13. We, however, cannot say the trial court actually excluded the engagement ring from the marital pot.

[12] Although the trial court mentioned at the final hearing that it excludes engagement rings from the marital estate, the trial court's dissolution decree does not specifically do so. Wife testified that the engagement ring was included in her valuation of the “jewelry cabinet and jewelry,” and the trial court specifically adopted Wife's listing of assets, which includes the jewelry. We cannot say that the trial court clearly excluded the engagement ring from the marital estate as Husband claims. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.

B. Valuation of Personal Property

[13] Next, Husband challenges the trial court's valuation of the personal property in Wife's possession. A trial court has “broad discretion in ascertaining the value of property in a dissolution action, and we will not disturb its valuation absent an abuse of that discretion.” Omije v. Whilby-Omije, 256 N.E.3d 539, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied. On appeal, we will not reweigh the evidence, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. Id. “If the trial court's valuation is within the scope of the evidence, the result is not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and reasonable inferences before the court.” Meyer, 205 N.E.3d at 1073 (citing Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144, 1151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)).

[14] Husband argues that the trial court “placed no value on the household furnishings.” Appellant's Br. p. 7. Husband, however, misinterprets the trial court's order regarding the personal property valuations.

[15] Wife valued Husband's truck at $35,405 and valued her vehicle at $1,602.93, and the trial court adopted these values. Wife testified that personal property in Husband's possession was valued at $9,400, and Husband did not challenge that valuation. Wife estimated that household goods and furnishings in her possession were valued at $26,860, based upon “current resale on eBay and resale sites.” Tr. Vol. II p. 64. Husband, on the other hand, testified that the household goods and furnishings in Wife's possession were valued at $97,434.41, based upon the cost to purchase the items.

[16] The trial court was dissatisfied with both Husband's and Wife's calculations of the value of the personal property in Wife's possession. The trial court, however, concluded that “the personal property and truck received by [Husband] is equal in value to the personal property and vehicle, the BMW, received by [Wife].” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 8. Husband received personal property and vehicles valued at $44,805 ($35,405 + $9,400), and Wife received personal property and vehicles of the same value, meaning that Wife's personal property was valued at $43,202.07 ($44,805 - $1,602.93). This valuation of personal property in Wife's possession was within the scope of the evidence presented by the parties. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it valued the personal property in Wife's possession.²

Conclusion

[17] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining or valuing the marital estate. Accordingly, we affirm.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Husband disputed the mileage of his truck, which was used by Wife to calculate her valuation, but Husband did not submit a separate valuation.

2.   Husband contends that he is entitled to an equalization payment because of errors in the trial court's valuation of personal property in Wife's possession. As the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing the personal property in Wife's possession, Husband has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to an equalization payment.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.