Leesa A Gatton v. Robert D Gatton

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 24A-DN-00716
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Feb 06 2025, 9:25 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Leesa A. Gatton, Appellant-Respondent

v.

Robert D. Gatton, Appellee-Petitioner

February 6, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-DN-716 Appeal from the Allen Circuit Court The Honorable Jesus R. Treviño, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02C01-2212-DN-1447

Opinion by Senior Judge Crone Judges Bradford and Tavitas concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 24A-DN-716 | February 6, 2025 Page 1 of 4 Crone, Senior Judge.

[1] Appellant Leesa A. Gatton (Wife) has filed a petition for rehearing of our

opinion in Gatton v. Gatton, No. 24A-DN-716, 2024 WL 5151076 (Ind. Ct. App.

Dec. 18, 2024). Appellee Robert D. Gatton (Husband) did not file a response.

We grant the petition in part and deny it in part.

[2] In Gatton, we held that the trial court improperly excluded the premarital

portion of Husband’s pension from the marital pot but did not abuse its

discretion “in dividing the marital estate as it did, i.e., in essentially awarding

Husband the entire present value of his pension and in disposing of the

remaining assets and liabilities as specified” in its dissolution decree. Id. at *8.

We also held that any error in the trial court’s failure to include Husband’s

$3,000 individual retirement account (IRA) in the marital estate was harmless.

[3] In her original appellant’s brief, Wife claimed that she filed proposed findings

with the trial court, but the chronological case summary (CCS) did not indicate

that she did, and she included only Husband’s proposed findings in her

appendix. That being the case, we stated in paragraph 2 of the opinion, “The

trial court gave the parties until November 27 to submit proposed findings.

Only Husband did so.” Id. at *1. And in addressing Wife’s argument that the

trial court erred in failing to include Husband’s IRA in the marital estate, we

stated in paragraph 17, “But Husband’s proposed findings did not mention the

IRA, and Wife did not submit her own findings or notify the trial court about

this omission.” Id. at *8. We further observed that Wife did not mention the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 24A-DN-716 | February 6, 2025 Page 2 of 4 IRA in her motion to correct error, and we ultimately concluded, “Assuming

for argument’s sake that Wife did not waive this issue by failing to timely raise

it with the trial court, we note that the value of the IRA is less than two percent

of the value of the marital estate, and thus its omission was de minimis.” Id.

[4] In support of her petition for rehearing, Wife submitted the affidavit of Jason

Funk, Director of Systems Operations for the Clerk of the Allen Circuit and

Superior Courts. Funk’s affidavit states that Wife did in fact submit proposed

findings, but they “were not listed on the CCS as they were mis-coded as a

proposed order.” Funk Affidavit at 2. Thus, neither the findings nor a CCS

entry documenting their filing were part of the record submitted to this Court

on appeal. Wife’s proposed findings, which are attached as an exhibit to the

affidavit, do not mention the IRA.

[5] Wife raises two issues in her petition. First, she argues that we should correct

the record regarding her submission of proposed findings and that she “should

not suffer any negative appellate court consequences as a result of that

perceived failure.” Pet. for Reh’g at 6. We grant Wife’s petition in part and

revise the above sentences from paragraph 2 to read as follows: “The trial court

gave the parties until November 27 to submit proposed findings. Both parties

did so.” And we revise the above sentence from paragraph 17 to read as

follows: “But neither Husband’s nor Wife’s proposed findings mentioned the

IRA.” These revisions do not affect the original outcome.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 24A-DN-716 | February 6, 2025 Page 3 of 4 [6] Second, Wife argues that we should remand so that the trial court can revamp

its findings regarding Husband’s pension and award her a greater share of the

marital estate. We stand by our original opinion on this point and therefore

deny Wife’s petition in part.

[7] Granted in part and denied in part.

Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Daniel J. Borgmann Helmke Beams LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 24A-DN-716 | February 6, 2025 Page 4 of 4