MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Jul 28 2017, 6:35 am precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Heather M. Schuh-Ogle Christopher C.T. Stephen Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Stephen Legal Group Guthrie, P.C. Greensburg, Indiana Columbus, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dustin L. Conley, July 28, 2017
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 16A05-1701-DR-81 v. Appeal from the Decatur Circuit Court. The Honorable Timothy Day, Judge. Candice M. Conley n/k/a Trial Court Cause No. Candice M. Koors, 16C01-1508-DR-378 Appellee-Petitioner.
Shepard, Senior Judge
[1] Dustin L. Conley appeals the trial court’s decree dissolving his marriage with
Candice M. Conley. We affirm.
[2] The parties married in 2013. They had no children together and separated in
2015. On August 12, 2015, Candice filed a petition for legal separation, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 1 of 6 motion for temporary possession of premises, and a motion for apportionment
of monthly liabilities. On July 19, 2016, she filed a petition for dissolution.
Meanwhile, Dustin was incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction
for an offense not identified in the record.
[3] The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. On September 19, 2016,
Dustin, by counsel, moved for continuance and moved to be transported from
the Department of Correction for the hearing. The court rescheduled the final
hearing but denied the motion to transport.
[4] At the evidentiary hearing on November 29, 2016, Dustin was represented by
counsel and by his mother, to whom he had granted a power of attorney. She
testified on his behalf. Neither party asked the court for findings of fact and
conclusions. On December 13, 2016, the court issued a decree of dissolution.
Among other provisions, the court awarded the marital home to Candice,
ordered that each party would keep his or her own retirement accounts, and
distributed the parties’ vehicles and personal property.
[5] Dustin first claims the court violated his rights under the Indiana Constitution
by holding the hearing without his participation, either in person or by
telephone. Article one, section twelve of the Indiana Constitution provides, in
relevant part: “All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to
him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of
law.” Implicit in the right to bring or defend against a civil action is the right to
present one’s claim in court. Sabo v. Sabo, 812 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6 The right to present one’s claim does not always amount to a right to be present
in court. A prisoner who is involved in a civil lawsuit has no general right to a
transport order. Id.
[6] Dustin asked the trial court to order him to be brought to court for the
evidentiary hearing, but pursuant to precedent the court did not violate his right
to due course of law by denying his request. Further, Dustin did not ask the
court to allow him to appear telephonically. The court cannot be faulted for
failing to grant relief a party did not request. See Hooker v. Hooker, 15 N.E.3d
1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (no violation in holding a hearing without the
incarcerated defendant where defendant did not ask to participate). The court
did not deprive Dustin of due course of law.
[7] Next, Dustin claims the court erred by failing to identify the values it assigned
to every marital asset. We review the court’s valuation of a marital asset for an
abuse of discretion. Weigel v. Weigel, 24 N.E.3d 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
There is no abuse of discretion where sufficient evidence and reasonable
inferences support the court’s valuation. Id. It is an abuse of discretion for the
court to distribute property without apprising itself of the value of the property.
In re Marriage of Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). The parties bear
the burden of demonstrating the value of marital assets. Campbell v. Campbell,
993 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. A party who fails to
introduce evidence as to the specific value of marital property is estopped from
appealing the distribution of the property on the ground of absence of evidence.
Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6 [8] Neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions. Thus, the court was
required to assess the value of each marital asset, but it was not obligated to
explain its valuations in detail. Further, Dustin submitted a list of the property
he wanted, including half of the house, but he did not assign a value to any of
the marital assets. Instead, Dustin’s mother presented values for the parties’
purebred dog, an Acura automobile, the parties’ equity in the marital home,
and Dustin’s retirement account. Dustin is thus estopped from challenging the
valuation of the other marital assets. In addition, at the end of the hearing the
court orally explained how it intended to distribute the assets, explaining that
the court was trying to be fair. It is clear from this discussion that the court
considered the parties’ evidence about the values of the assets. The court did
not abuse its discretion. See Dean v. Dean, 439 N.E.2d 1378 (Ind. Ct. App.
1982) (no abuse of discretion in valuing property where court did not explicitly
state value of each marital asset).
[9] Finally, Dustin argues the trial court inappropriately deviated from an equal
division of marital property without providing an adequate explanation. Courts
are required by statute to presume that an equal division of the marital estate “is
just and reasonable.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 (1997). The party challenging a
trial court’s division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption
that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute. Harris v.
Harris, 42 N.E.3d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). This presumption is one of the
strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal. Id. The
division of marital assets is within the trial court’s discretion, and we will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6 reverse only for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Perez, 7 N.E.3d 1009
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Jul 28 2017, 6:35 am precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Heather M. Schuh-Ogle Christopher C.T. Stephen Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Stephen Legal Group Guthrie, P.C. Greensburg, Indiana Columbus, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dustin L. Conley, July 28, 2017
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 16A05-1701-DR-81 v. Appeal from the Decatur Circuit Court. The Honorable Timothy Day, Judge. Candice M. Conley n/k/a Trial Court Cause No. Candice M. Koors, 16C01-1508-DR-378 Appellee-Petitioner.
Shepard, Senior Judge
[1] Dustin L. Conley appeals the trial court’s decree dissolving his marriage with
Candice M. Conley. We affirm.
[2] The parties married in 2013. They had no children together and separated in
2015. On August 12, 2015, Candice filed a petition for legal separation, a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 1 of 6 motion for temporary possession of premises, and a motion for apportionment
of monthly liabilities. On July 19, 2016, she filed a petition for dissolution.
Meanwhile, Dustin was incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction
for an offense not identified in the record.
[3] The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. On September 19, 2016,
Dustin, by counsel, moved for continuance and moved to be transported from
the Department of Correction for the hearing. The court rescheduled the final
hearing but denied the motion to transport.
[4] At the evidentiary hearing on November 29, 2016, Dustin was represented by
counsel and by his mother, to whom he had granted a power of attorney. She
testified on his behalf. Neither party asked the court for findings of fact and
conclusions. On December 13, 2016, the court issued a decree of dissolution.
Among other provisions, the court awarded the marital home to Candice,
ordered that each party would keep his or her own retirement accounts, and
distributed the parties’ vehicles and personal property.
[5] Dustin first claims the court violated his rights under the Indiana Constitution
by holding the hearing without his participation, either in person or by
telephone. Article one, section twelve of the Indiana Constitution provides, in
relevant part: “All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to
him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of
law.” Implicit in the right to bring or defend against a civil action is the right to
present one’s claim in court. Sabo v. Sabo, 812 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6 The right to present one’s claim does not always amount to a right to be present
in court. A prisoner who is involved in a civil lawsuit has no general right to a
transport order. Id.
[6] Dustin asked the trial court to order him to be brought to court for the
evidentiary hearing, but pursuant to precedent the court did not violate his right
to due course of law by denying his request. Further, Dustin did not ask the
court to allow him to appear telephonically. The court cannot be faulted for
failing to grant relief a party did not request. See Hooker v. Hooker, 15 N.E.3d
1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (no violation in holding a hearing without the
incarcerated defendant where defendant did not ask to participate). The court
did not deprive Dustin of due course of law.
[7] Next, Dustin claims the court erred by failing to identify the values it assigned
to every marital asset. We review the court’s valuation of a marital asset for an
abuse of discretion. Weigel v. Weigel, 24 N.E.3d 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
There is no abuse of discretion where sufficient evidence and reasonable
inferences support the court’s valuation. Id. It is an abuse of discretion for the
court to distribute property without apprising itself of the value of the property.
In re Marriage of Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). The parties bear
the burden of demonstrating the value of marital assets. Campbell v. Campbell,
993 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. A party who fails to
introduce evidence as to the specific value of marital property is estopped from
appealing the distribution of the property on the ground of absence of evidence.
Church, 424 N.E.2d 1078.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6 [8] Neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions. Thus, the court was
required to assess the value of each marital asset, but it was not obligated to
explain its valuations in detail. Further, Dustin submitted a list of the property
he wanted, including half of the house, but he did not assign a value to any of
the marital assets. Instead, Dustin’s mother presented values for the parties’
purebred dog, an Acura automobile, the parties’ equity in the marital home,
and Dustin’s retirement account. Dustin is thus estopped from challenging the
valuation of the other marital assets. In addition, at the end of the hearing the
court orally explained how it intended to distribute the assets, explaining that
the court was trying to be fair. It is clear from this discussion that the court
considered the parties’ evidence about the values of the assets. The court did
not abuse its discretion. See Dean v. Dean, 439 N.E.2d 1378 (Ind. Ct. App.
1982) (no abuse of discretion in valuing property where court did not explicitly
state value of each marital asset).
[9] Finally, Dustin argues the trial court inappropriately deviated from an equal
division of marital property without providing an adequate explanation. Courts
are required by statute to presume that an equal division of the marital estate “is
just and reasonable.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 (1997). The party challenging a
trial court’s division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption
that the court considered and complied with the applicable statute. Harris v.
Harris, 42 N.E.3d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). This presumption is one of the
strongest presumptions applicable to our consideration on appeal. Id. The
division of marital assets is within the trial court’s discretion, and we will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6 reverse only for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Perez, 7 N.E.3d 1009
(Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial
court’s disposition of the marital property, and we may not reweigh the
evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
[10] It is not apparent that the court deviated from an equal division. To the
contrary, the court indicated in its discussion at the evidentiary hearing, “We’re
not dealing with exact numbers, so I’m going to do the best I can here.” Tr. p.
38. For example, the court ordered Candice to make the payments on one of
the parties’ cars until Dustin was released from incarceration, at which point
she would give the car to him and he would be solely responsible for the
payments. The court stated it would balance Candice’s obligation to make car
payments by awarding her the parties’ dog, a relatively expensive purebred. In
addition, the court awarded Candice the equity in the marital home but ordered
her to pay the debt owed on the parties’ credit card.
[11] If anything, the estate was divided in favor of Dustin. The parties each kept
their own retirement accounts, and Dustin’s was worth nearly twice Candice’s
($59,000 versus $30,000). The court awarded Candice the marital home, in
which the parties had, according to the court, only “a few thousand dollars in
equity.” Tr. p. 40. Further, Candice had been paying the mortgage and other
expenses by herself starting in July 2016 when Dustin was incarcerated, and the
court assigned her sole responsibility for the mortgage, taxes, and upkeep going
forward. We find no abuse of discretion in the division of the marital estate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 5 of 6 [12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[13] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 16A05-1701-DR-81 | July 28, 2017 Page 6 of 6