Justin Stein v. Heather Stein (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Jan 24 2020, 10:00 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
John G. Wetherill B. Michael Macer
Wetherill Law Office Biesecker Dutkanych & Macer, LLC
Rockport, Indiana Evansville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Justin Stein, January 24, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-DC-1306
Appeal from the Spencer Circuit
v. Court
The Hon. Karen Werner, Special
Judge
Heather Stein,
Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner. 74C01-1708-DC-423
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Justin Stein (“Husband”) and Heather Stein (“Wife”) began cohabitating in
2009 and married in 2012. Throughout the marriage, Husband worked for
Stein Turkey Farm, LLC (“the LLC”), which operated his family’s farm and in
which he had a 49% share. Although Wife worked full-time, she contributed
significant work to the LLC’s turkey and horse businesses. Wife also paid half
of the couple’s bills and did most of the work to maintain the household, which
included Wife’s child from a previous relationship and the parties’ son
(“Child”). In May of 2017, Wife petitioned for dissolution of the marriage.
After a final hearing, the trial court awarded all of Husband’s interest in the
LLC to him and ordered an equal division of the marital estate. Husband
contends that the trial court’s equal division of the marital estate is contrary to
law. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Husband was born on April 20, 1987, and Husband and Wife began living
together in autumn of 2009 and married on May 5, 2012. Wife worked full-
time for approximately $12.00 per hour during the marriage, while Husband
averaged $70,999.00 per year in net earnings from 2015 through 2017 working
on his family’s farm. While married, the parties evenly divided their bills, with
Wife paying the water, cable television, electricity, internet, telephone bills and
for most of the groceries, cleaning supplies, landscaping, interior upgrades,
health insurance for the family, and daycare costs. Wife was also primarily
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 2 of 8
responsible for maintaining the House and taking care of Child and Wife’s child
from a previous relationship.
[3] The Steins’ farm, which began operations in 1994 and did business during the
marriage by the LLC, has turkey, horse, and cattle businesses. Husband owned
49% of the LLC while his father owned the rest. The LLC raises turkeys owned
by Perdue until they are ready for processing. Wife would help set up houses
for poults, set up feeder rings, and fill feeders and perform other tasks related to
the turkey business. At times, Wife would work from eight to ten hours per day
on the weekend for the turkey operation. The LLC also operated a horse
business, which was primarily run by Wife and sold approximately 200 horses
per year. Wife would ride and work with the horses, photograph them for sale,
and deal directly with buyers. Even though Wife did most of the work, the
proceeds from the horse business were deposited in Husband’s segregated
account.
[4] On May 5, 2017, Wife petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Husband,
and a final hearing was conducted on February 21 and 28, 2019. By that time,
Wife was making more money; in 2018, she made $26,111.00 in adjusted gross
income. Tax records admitted at the hearing indicated that Husband was a
49% owner of the LLC, and Gregory Wasson appraised it and testified that it
was worth $346,500.00 as of September 13, 2018. On May 10, 2019, the trial
court issued its order on, inter alia, property division, in which it awarded
Husband $218,202.00 and Wife $185,895.85.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 3 of 8
[5] Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the
marital estate. Indiana Code section 31-15-7-5 provides as follows:
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.
[6] “Subject to the statutory presumption that an equal distribution of marital
property is just and reasonable, the disposition of marital assets is committed to
the sound discretion of the trial court.” Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503,
512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 4 of 8
An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or the
reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn
therefrom. An abuse of discretion also occurs when the trial
court misinterprets the law or disregards evidence of factors listed
in the controlling statute. The presumption that a dissolution
court correctly followed the law and made all the proper
considerations in crafting its property distribution is one of the
strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on
appeal. Thus, we will reverse a property distribution only if there
is no rational basis for the award and, although the circumstances
may have justified a different property distribution, we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the dissolution court.
Id. (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
[7] Finally, because Husband had the burden to establish that an unequal division
was warranted, he appeals from a negative judgment.
A judgment entered against a party who bore the burden of proof
at trial is a negative judgment. Garling v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res.,
766 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). On appeal, we will
not reverse a negative judgment unless it is contrary to law.
Mominee v. King, 629 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
To determine whether a judgment is contrary to law, we consider
the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, together
with all the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. J.W. v.
Hendricks Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 697 N.E.2d 480, 482
(Ind. Ct. App. 1998). A party appealing from a negative
judgment must show that the evidence points unerringly to a
conclusion different than that reached by the trial court.
Mominee, 629 N.E.2d at 1282.
Smith v. Dermatology Assocs. of Fort Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 5 of 8
[8] While Husband does not dispute the valuation of any component of the marital
estate, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering its equal
division.1 Specifically, Husband contends that he successfully rebutted the
presumption of an equal division in light of his interest in the LLC, which he
claims to have received through premarital inheritance or gift. As mentioned,
the presumption of equal division may be rebutted by evidence regarding the
extent to which property was acquired through inheritance or gift. See Ind.
Code § 31-15-7-5(2)(A), -5(2)(B).
[9] Husband’s entire argument appears to be based on the premise that his 49%
stake in the LLC was acquired through a premarital gift or inheritance and that
the intent of Husband’s family was to keep the LLC and farm intact and pass it
to Husband at some point. As Wife points out, however, Husband identifies no
evidence in the record indicating how much—if any—of Husband’s interest in
the LLC was acquired through inheritance or gift. Even though Wife testified
that it was her understanding that Husband’s initial interest in the LLC was a
gift from his parents, there is no evidence to establish the nature or amount of
that initial interest or when the gift occurred. As for Husband’s family’s intent,
Husband does not explain, nor is it clear to us, why it should result in an
unequal division of the marital estate. In any event, the trial court awarded all
1
We would be remiss if we did not point out that while the trial court indicated that it was dividing the
marital estate evenly, it, in fact, awarded $32,306.15 more to Husband than to Wife due to her willingness to
take only half of the value of the House and a bank account. That said, Husband frames his argument as
though the trial court ordered an equal division, and Wife seems to respond to it on those terms.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 6 of 8
of Husband’s interest in the LLC to him, so the family farm remains intact and
in Husband’s family.
[10] Moreover, as Wife points out, even if we assume that Husband’s 49% share of
the LLC was entirely the result of a premarital gift or inheritance, that is only
one factor for the trial court to consider. Contrary to Husband’s claim, Wife
presented substantial evidence, which the trial court was entitled to credit, that
she essentially ran the horse operation while the proceeds went to Husband and
also contributed many hours to the LLC’s turkey operation. Wife also
presented evidence that she paid the bills for water, cable television, electricity,
internet, and telephone and for most of the groceries, cleaning supplies,
landscaping, interior upgrades, health insurance, and daycare; maintained the
House; and did the cooking. Even if we assume that Husband acquired his
entire stake in the LLC through gift or inheritance, we cannot say, in light of
Wife’s contributions to the LLC and the household during the marriage, that
the trial court abused its discretion in ordering an equal division of the marital
estate.
[11] Husband relies on the decision by another panel of this court in Dahlin v.
Dahlin, 397 N.E.2d 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), in which we reversed the trial
court’s near-equal distribution of the marital estate. In Dahlin, the trial court
awarded $44,000.00 to the husband and $43,000.00 to the wife following the
dissolution of their marriage. Id. at 608. The husband argued that the near-
equal division of the marital estate was an abuse of discretion and pointed to
the following uncontested facts:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 7 of 8
(1) that [the husband] entered the marriage with a net worth of
approximately $65,000; (2) that [the wife] entered the marriage
with a net worth of less than $10,000; (3) that virtually all of the
parties’ financial obligations were paid by [the husband],
including a large mortgage and note obligation on the parties’
real estate; and (4) that [the wife]’s earnings made a negligible
contribution to the parties’ finances.
Id. We agreed with the husband, concluding that “[t]he short duration of the
marriage, the substantial property and financial contributions of [the husband],
the extremely limited contribution of [the wife], and the fact of [the husband]’s
imminent retirement on a modest pension are all circumstances which militate
against the division made below.” Id.
[12] Dahlin, however, is readily distinguished. Here, although the marriage was
approximately five years in duration, Husband and Wife lived together for three
years prior to their wedding. Moreover, although there is some indication that
Husband had more assets than Wife before the marriage, there is no evidence
that the disparity was as great as that in Dahlin. As mentioned, there is also
ample evidence that Wife made significant financial and other contributions to
the running of the parties’ household during the marriage and contributed
significant labor to the LLC. Finally, Husband is now thirty-two years old, not
facing the imminent prospect of retirement on a small, fixed income, as was the
husband in Dahlin. Due to the many differences between the two cases, our
decision in Dahlin does not require reversal in this case.
[13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DC-1306 | January 24, 2020 Page 8 of 8