Harlan v. Harlan

560 N.E.2d 1246, 1990 Ind. LEXIS 221, 1990 WL 162412
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 22, 1990
Docket49S02-9010-CV-680
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 560 N.E.2d 1246 (Harlan v. Harlan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harlan v. Harlan, 560 N.E.2d 1246, 1990 Ind. LEXIS 221, 1990 WL 162412 (Ind. 1990).

Opinion

ON CIVIL PETITION TO TRANSFER

PER CURIAM.

Following the dissolution of their marriage, the parties each appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded as to the division and distribution of marital property. Harlan v. Harlan (1989), Ind.App., 544 N.E.2d 553.

The husband petitioned to transfer, and oral argument was conducted. The principal issue, one of first impression before this Court, involves the statutory construction of Ind.Code § 81-1-11.5-11.1;:

The court, in determining what is just and reasonable in dividing property under section 11 [81-I-11.5-11] of this chapter, shall consider the tax consequences of the property disposition with respect to the present and future economic circumstances of each party.

The Court of Appeals held that the statute requires the trial court to consider only the direct or inherent and necessarily incurred tax consequences "of the property disposition." 544 N.E.2d at 555. The husband contends that the statute should be construed to compel the trial court to consider potential tax liabilities associated with an asset being awarded to a party, even if the tax consequences are not immediate and definite.

Because this issue is frequently seen in marriage dissolution proceedings, we grant transfer to express our approval of the decision reached by the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(8), the opinion of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., dissents. GIVAN, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mary J. Coate v. Timothy D. Coate (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016
Hardin v. Hardin
964 N.E.2d 247 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2012)
Robert Hardin v. Carlotta Hardin
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2012
Wanner v. Hutchcroft
888 N.E.2d 260 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2008)
Hartley v. Hartley
862 N.E.2d 274 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2007)
Knotts v. Knotts
693 N.E.2d 962 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1998)
DeHaan v. DeHaan
572 N.E.2d 1315 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
560 N.E.2d 1246, 1990 Ind. LEXIS 221, 1990 WL 162412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlan-v-harlan-ind-1990.