Raymond Ray Harris, Jr., Appellant v. Lisa R. Harris, Appellee (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Raymond Ray Harris, Jr., (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court's order dividing the marital property in this dissolution action. Lisa R. Harris (“Wife”) cross-appeals and requests appellate damages. We affirm the trial court's order and deny Wife's request for appellate damages.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Husband and Wife were married in 1992.¹ Husband is a pastor and entrepreneur, and Wife is a nurse. By way of background, Wife's parents, Arden and Betty Millermon, acquired a skilled nursing home named Casa Coloma in 1975, and Wife began working at the nursing home when she was sixteen years old. Wife's parents created the Millermon Revocable Family Trust, the beneficiaries of the Family Trust include Wife, her sister Deborah Portela, and her brother Paul Millermon, and Paul is the current trustee. Husband founded a church (“Church”) in Fort Wayne in 2004. Husband created 55 Red, LLC, (“55 Red”) in 2008. The parties acquired several rental properties beginning in 2015, and Wife's parents loaned the parties money to purchase several of the properties. In January 2020, Betty passed away.² In December 2020, Husband became the sole owner of Christian Childcare Ministries (“CCM”). On January 10, 2022, Arden asked Paul to prepare three checks “from the Millermon Partnership” for $200,000 each to distribute to his three children, and the $200,000 payments “were registered as ‘receivables’ ” that each child owed to the Millermon Partnership.³ Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 21-22. On January 17, 2022, Arden passed away. On January 31, 2022, 55 Red entered into an agreement with Church to manage its childcare ministry. Husband sent a letter of resignation to Church in March 2022 and retired from Church in May 2022.

[3] On June 2, 2022, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Husband moved to Chicago in September 2022. In January 2023, Husband obtained employment with African Mission Healthcare and began earning an annual salary of approximately $140,000. In December 2023, the parties filed pretrial stipulations identifying marital property and providing values for certain assets and debts. The court held a final hearing over several days in 2024.⁴ The multi-million dollar marital estate included real property, bank and retirement accounts, automobiles, personal property including Wife's jewelry and Husband's Rolex watch, 55 Red, CCM, rental properties, and certain gifted and inherited interests. On June 26, 2024, the court issued a summary disposition order dissolving the parties’ marriage and stating that it would rule on the contested issues of property identification, valuation, and division after the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions. On December 2, 2024, the court issued a decree of dissolution of marriage which ordered Wife to pay Husband an equalization payment of $232,187.

[4] Husband filed a motion to correct error arguing that the court erred when it included a “Millermon Partnership Note Receivable” in the amount of $200,000 as well as by including three “Millermon Trust Notes” totaling $90,847 as marital debts to be divided between the parties, which improperly decreased the equalization payment to him. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 211-212. On March 13, 2025, the court issued an order stating that it “now finds error with regard to the inclusion of debts totaling [$290,847] consisting of the Millermon Partnership Note Receivable ․ and three Millermon Trust Notes ․ in the Court's property distribution and equalization and therefore, grants [Husband's] Motion to Correct Errors, in part.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 117.

[5] Also on March 13, 2025, the court issued a 114-page Amended Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. The court found “it just and appropriate to include all of the parties’ gifts and inheritance(s) in the marital estate, and set off to [Wife] and [Husband] the gifts and inheritance(s) that they received during their marriage without offset and then divide the remainder of the marital estate equally.” Id. at 106. The court found that the gifts and inheritances included in the marital estate included “Wife's 5.16% interest in Millermon Partnership,” “Wife's 1/3 interest in 7225 Locust Road Trust B,” “Wife's 1/3 interest in Millermon Trust,” Wife's interest in inherited IRAs, and “Husband's .26% interest in Millermon Partnership.” Id. at 90. The court found that the “net marital estate (excluding gifts and inheritances *and any debts associated with the gifts and inheritances)” is $3,165,682. Id. at 113. The Amended Decree ordered Wife to pay Husband an equalization payment of $377,323.

Discussion

[6] Husband contends the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate. He argues the court arbitrarily valued and divided the marital property without evidentiary support. He argues the court “failed to completely correct a $290,847 error” and “showed no new math and offered no explanation reconciling the numbers.” Appellant's Brief at 20-21. He argues that, “in valuing some of the largest assets in the estate, the trial court relied heavily on testimony from Wife's sister, Deborah Portela, who is herself a beneficiary of the Millermon Trust.” Id. at 21-22. Husband further contends that the court failed to justify awarding Wife's inherited assets solely to her. He argues, “[t]he court did provide a perfunctory recitation of certain statutory factors, but it failed to perform the critical step required by the statute: weighing those factors against the fact of inheritance to explain why such a stark deviation was just and reasonable.” Id. at 28. He also asserts the court ignored Wife's “destructive conduct.” Id. at 30.

[7] Wife maintains that the evidence supports the court's valuations, the parties entered stipulations regarding many assets, Husband fails to identify which assets or debts were improperly valued, and the court accepted Husband's proposed valuations of several substantial assets. She argues that a comparison of the original decree and the Amended Decree show that the court increased her equalization payment as Husband requested in his motion to correct error. With respect to the property acquired through gift and inheritance, Wife argues that Husband does not identify any finding that he claims is clearly erroneous and unsupported by evidence, his argument is merely an invitation to reweigh the evidence, and the trial court addressed the considerations in Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. On cross-appeal, Wife argues the trial court, in its Amended Decree, erred in not including the Millermon Trust Notes totaling $90,847 as marital debts to be divided between the parties because the parties stipulated to the inclusion of the notes in the marital estate.

[8] We review a trial court's division of marital property 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. When the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law, an appellate court may set aside the trial court's judgment only when clearly erroneous. 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.

[9] The division of marital property involves a two-step process. Id. at 226. First, the trial court must identify the property to include in the marital estate. Id. at 226-227. This consists of both assets and liabilities and encompasses “all marital property,” whether acquired by a spouse before the marriage or during the marriage or procured by the parties jointly. Id. at 227. Once the court identifies the marital estate, it must then distribute the property in a “just and reasonable” manner. Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5). The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. A party, however, may rebut this presumption with relevant evidence showing “that an equal division would not be just and reasonable.” Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 227 (quoting Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5). This evidence may include:

• each spouse's contribution to the property's acquisition, regardless of whether the contribution produced any income;

• the extent to which a spouse acquired property, either before the marriage or through inheritance or gift;

• each spouse's economic circumstances at the time of divorce;

• the parties’ conduct during the marriage, as it related to the disposal or dissipation of assets; and

• the parties’ respective earnings or earning ability.

Id. (citing Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5). This statutory list is nonexclusive, and no single factor controls the division of property. Id. “So long as it expressly considers all assets and liabilities, and so long as it offers sufficient findings to rebut the presumptive equal division, a trial court need not follow a rigid, technical formula in dividing the marital estate and we will assume that it applied the law correctly.” Id. at 229. 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). A trial court has not abused its discretion if sufficient evidence and reasonable inferences support that valuation. Id.

A. Marital Estate

1. Valuation

[10] As for Husband's claim that the court arbitrarily valued the marital property, the record reveals that the parties stipulated to the value of certain marital assets and debts including real property, bank accounts, retirement funds, automobiles, personal property, business interests, and credit cards. Moreover, Husband does not challenge the valuation of the assets which the court determined were to be divided between the parties. Rather, he challenges the values assigned to assets which were inherited by Wife and which the trial court set aside to her. As the court set aside Wife's inherited assets to her, the valuation of those assets does not affect the amount of the court's ordered equalization payment. In any event, the record reveals that the court assigned values to the inherited assets consistent with the values Husband used for those assets in his proposed findings of fact. See Appellee's Appendix Volume III at 39-41 (proposed findings that “[Wife's] 1/3 interest in the Trust ․ is $6,245,303.03,” that Husband “accepted Debbie's final value of the Millermon Partnership,” and that “[Wife's] 5.16% ownership” in the Millermon Partnership was “valued at $620,862.00”); Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 90 (trial court finding “Wife's 1/3 interest in Millermon Trust” was $6,245,303 and “Wife's 5.16% interest in Millermon Partnership” was $620,862). We cannot say the court abused its discretion.

2. Amended Decree

[11] To the extent Husband refers to “a $290,847 error” and argues the court “showed no new math” in its Amended Decree, Appellant's Brief at 20-21, we note that, in the original decree, the court identified a “Millermon Partnership Loan” of $200,000 and three “Millermon Trust Note[s]” as debts to be divided between the parties. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 189-190. The trust notes were listed as debts associated with rental properties, and the three trust notes totaled $90,847. The court determined that “[t]he net marital estate (excluding gifts and inheritances)” was $2,875,410 and that Wife must pay Husband an equalization payment of $232,187. Id. at 193.

[12] The court later granted Husband's motion to correct error and issued the Amended Decree, and the Amended Decree does not list the Millermon Partnership Loan or the three Millermon Trust Notes as marital debts to be divided between the parties. See Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 109-110. The court found that “[t]he net marital estate (excluding gifts and inheritances *and any debts associated with the gifts and inheritances)”⁵ is $3,165,682, and one-half of that amount was $1,582,841. Id. at 113. The court found that, excluding gifts and inheritance, Wife was awarded $1,960,164 and that, in order to equalize the division of the property to be divided of $3,165,682, Wife must pay Husband an equalization payment of $377,323. We cannot say the court failed to provide an explanation for its determination of the amended equalization payment.

3. Millermon Trust Notes

[13] As for Wife's assertion on cross-appeal that the Millermon Trust Notes totaling $90,847 should have been included in the marital property to be divided between the parties and her argument that the parties stipulated to the inclusion of those notes in the marital estate, we note that the parties filed stipulations which stated, “[t]he parties ․ stipulate and agree that for purposes of the Final Hearing in this matter and the Court's property distribution herein, to the following property and values,” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 52, and then listed assets and debts and values for some of the assets and debts, including the Millermon Trust Notes. The parties’ stipulations identified assets and debts which comprised the property of the marital estate. The parties did not agree to the proper division or distribution of the assets and debts or agree that certain identified gifted or inherited assets and debts, or debts associated with gifted and inherited assets, would be set aside to Wife or included in the property to be divided between the parties. In addition to the trust notes, the stipulations identified “7225 Locust Road Trust B” and the “Millermon Family Trust” as assets, which constituted gifted or inherited property. Id. at 53. We cannot say the fact that the stipulations identified the Millermon Trust Notes as property of the marital estate in some way precluded the trial court from setting aside the notes, along with other gifted and inherited property, before dividing the remaining property as set forth in the Amended Decree. See Kendrick v. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d 721, 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“The ‘one pot’ theory prohibits the exclusion of any asset from the scope of the court's power to divide and award. While the court may ultimately determine a particular asset should be awarded to one spouse, it must first include the asset in its consideration as to how the marital estate should be divided.”), trans. denied. We find no abuse of discretion.

B. Division of Property

[14] As for Husband's argument that the trial court failed to justify awarding Wife's inherited assets solely to her, the court noted that Wife “request[ed] that the Court take into consideration the facts and circumstances surrounding her receipt of the gifts and inheritances and set those off to her before proceeding to divide the remaining marital estate equally,” that Husband “request[ed] that the Court include all of [Wife's] gifts and inheritances in the marital estate and then divide the marital estate equally,” and that “[t]his conflict is the most significant issue in this case.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 94.

[15] A party may rebut the presumption that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. To the extent Husband does not challenge the court's findings of fact, the unchallenged facts stand as proven. See In re B.R., 875 N.E.2d 369, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (failure to challenge findings by the trial court resulted in waiver of the argument that the findings were clearly erroneous), trans. denied.

[16] As for the parties’ contributions to the acquisition of the marital property, the court found, “both parties actively contributed to the acquisition of the marital estate” and Wife “provided substantial services which were not income producing in that she was the primary caregiver for the parties’ six (6) children and was primarily responsible for maintaining the home.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 72. The court issued detailed findings regarding the parties’ contributions over the course of the marriage, finding that Wife worked as a nurse and earned more income than Husband during the first seven years of the marriage, Wife arranged for the purchase of five rental properties and her parents provided loans for the purchase of four of the properties, Husband draws approximately $10,000 per month from 55 Red and CCM, and Wife's parents helped the parties increase their wealth by loaning them money to assist with the purchase of property for Church and for the purchase of rental properties.

[17] Regarding the parties’ economic circumstances, the court found that Husband “earns more income from more sources than he has ever earned in his employment history,” he earns approximately $140,000 from his employment, he receives substantial income from the management agreement he entered with Church to manage its daycare operations, he receives monthly draws from CCM, and 55 Red contributes to or pays his credit card charges which are fairly significant each month. It found Husband's monthly budget includes expenditures of $10,000 per month for entertainment, vacations, and/or restaurants, and he lives in a condominium on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, which is owned by 55 Red.

[18] With respect to dissipation, the court issued detailed findings regarding Husband's expenditures on clothing, travel, and dining and found that, “given the significant increase in spending during the time that the marriage was deteriorating and given the fact that in the spring of 2022, the parties were contemplating divorce, [Husband] did engage in spending that was wasteful and/or frivolous that generally dissipated the marital estate from what it would have been on the date of filing.” Id. at 63-64.

[19] As for the parties’ earnings and earning abilities, the court found that Wife was sixty-three years old, near the end of her working career, and earned about $57,000 in 2023. It found that Husband was fifty-nine years old, he had income from a variety of sources, it was anticipated that his “income stream will continue into the future,” and “[i]n comparing [Wife's] expected earnings with [Husband's] expected income from all sources, [Husband] is likely to earn more than 12 times what [Wife] would earn through the age of 66 and would likely receive income of over $2,000,000.00 greater than [Wife] during that timeframe.” Id. at 87-88.

[20] The trial court concluded, “[i]n this case, there is a unique set of facts and circumstances which have a bearing on the Court's ruling,” “there is a substantial marital estate without the gifts and inheritances,” “at the time of the Final Hearing, [Wife] had not yet received the bulk of her inheritance,” and Husband “has substantial income and arguably a lifestyle, that would not improve even if he received a portion of [Wife's] inheritance.” Id. at 99. It found that, during the marriage, Wife's parents were generous in giving gifts, and their generosity included providing a one million dollar loan to Husband so that he could grow Church by purchasing and renovating a building. It concluded that Husband's “economic circumstances and future earning ability are significantly greater than [Wife's]” and that, “[i]n considering the entirety of the marital estate, the Court finds that with the inclusion of [Wife's] gifts and inheritances in the marital estate, [Wife] is directly responsible for a significant percentage of the net marital estate.” Id. at 103.

[21] The court further noted that “the parties were struggling in their marriage in 2021 particularly in the fall of that year,” “[b]oth parties participated in individual and marital counseling,” “[i]n February of 2022, [Husband] met with a lawyer about his marriage troubles,” “[i]n March of 2022, he informed his counselor that divorce was imminent and that he wanted to retire from his church before the dissolution petition was filed in order to spare the church from the dissolution proceedings,” “[b]efore the death of her father, [Wife's] siblings counseled her to file for divorce, but she did not do so because she wanted to work on her marriage,” and Wife's father “died in January of 2022.” Id. at 104-105. The court found that, “after their separation, both parties have moved on with their lives,” Wife works as a nurse, and Husband continues to work, earns an annual salary of $140,000, earns additional income from other businesses, and has between $15,000 and $20,000 per month in disposable income and is able to continue to travel, dine, and maintain his current lifestyle. Id. at 105. It also found that Wife, her parents, and her siblings “put their life's work into Casa Coloma and made it a very successful nursing home” and “[a]ll of the trust and inheritance distributions received are a result of the family's lifelong work at Casa Coloma.” Id. at 106. The court concluded, “[a]ccordingly, the Court finds it just and appropriate to include all of the parties’ gifts and inheritance(s) in the marital estate, and set off to [Wife] and [Husband] the gifts and inheritance(s) that they received during their marriage without offset and then divide the remainder of the marital estate equally.” Id.

[22] The record reveals that Husband and Wife presented detailed testimony and exhibits regarding the value and sources of their assets and debts. The parties stipulated as to the value of many marital assets. The witnesses were thoroughly examined and cross-examined, and the court was able to assess their credibility and weigh their testimony. While certain facts may have supported a distribution more favorable to Husband, the standard of review precludes us from substituting our judgment for that of the trial court. See Roetter, 182 N.E.3d at 221 (“To be sure, ․ certain facts may have supported a distribution more favorable to the [w]ife․ But, at the end of the day, the standard of review precludes us from substituting our judg[ ]ment for that of the trial court.”) (citing Fobar v. Vonderahe, 771 N.E.2d 57, 59 (Ind. 2002) (emphasizing that, rather than reweighing the evidence, an appellate court only considers the evidence “most favorable” to the trial court's judgment)). The trial court's 114-page order reveals that it thoughtfully considered the statutory considerations separately and as a whole, reviewed Indiana precedent on the issue, and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. As we consider only the evidence most favorable to the court's disposition, we cannot say that Husband has overcome the strong presumption that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute or that the trial court's division of the marital property was not just and reasonable. See Luedke v. Luedke, 487 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 1985) (observing it was apparent the trial court considered the source of the property and painstakingly distributed the assets, and holding the court reached its conclusion in a fair and reasonable manner on the record and that reversal was not merited).⁶

C. Appellate Damages

[23] Wife requests appellate damages under Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E), arguing “simply stated, Husband made up issues for this appeal, and then failed to present a cogent rationale for their inclusion, because it was impossible to do so.” Appellee's Brief at 39. This Court is authorized to assess damages if an appeal “is frivolous or in bad faith,” and such damages “shall be in the Court's discretion and may include attorneys’ fees.” Ind. Appellate Rule 66(E). A strong showing is required to justify an award of appellate damages, and the sanction is not imposed to punish mere lack of merit, but something more egregious. Bessolo v. Rosario, 966 N.E.2d 725, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. To prevail on her request, Wife must show that Husband's arguments on appeal are “utterly devoid of all plausibility.” See id. While we do not disturb the trial court's order, we cannot say that Husband's arguments on appeal are utterly devoid of all plausibility or that an award of appellate damages is warranted.

[24] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order and deny Wife's request for appellate damages.

[25] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The parties do not have any unemancipated minor children. They have two biological children and adopted four children.

2.   “After the death of Betty Millermon, the Millermon Family Revocable Survivor's Trust was created under the Millermon Revocable Family Trust.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 19.

3.   Millermon Partnership, LP, owned the real estate upon which Casa Colona operated.

4.   The record on appeal includes six transcript volumes and twenty-two volumes of exhibits.

5.   The Amended Decree states: “* indicates amendment.” Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 2.

6.   As for Husband's assertion that the trial court “ignored Wife's destructive conduct” related to the adoptive children, Appellant's Brief at 30, the court issued detailed findings related to the parties’ relationships with the adopted children over the years, and we do not find Husband's argument to have merit.

Brown, Judge.

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