Scheetz v. Scheetz

Indiana Court of Appeals

Scheetz v. Scheetz

522 N.E.2d 919, 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 1127, 1988 WL 46432

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1988

Docket2-785-A-229

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 522 N.E.2d 919 (Scheetz v. Scheetz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scheetz v. Scheetz, 522 N.E.2d 919, 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 1127, 1988 WL 46432 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REHEARING

BUCHANAN, Judge.

In our opinion in this case, Scheetz v. Scheetz (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 840, we affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, except we reversed as to granting Sandra (wife) relief under Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60.

Apparently, the parties interpret our opinion as permitting the trial court to reopen the case now for the presentation of additional evidence on the subject of valuation of the property of the parties. This is not so. A full evidentiary hearing was conducted in this dissolution proceeding. The parties are bound by the evidence they introduced at trial. See In Re Marriage of Church (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 1078, trans. denied; see also Showley v. Showley (1983), Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 1230. The trial court may not reopen the case for the purpose of allowing additional evidence to be presented by either party but may on remand make any adjustments it deems necessary from the evidence already before the court.

Rehearing denied.

NEAL and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur (sitting by designation).

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

ON REHEARING

BUCHANAN, Judge.

In our opinion in this case, Scheetz v. Scheetz (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 840, we affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, except we reversed as to granting Sandra (wife) relief under Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60.

Apparently, the parties interpret our opinion as permitting the trial court to reopen the case now for the presentation of additional evidence on the subject of valuation of the property of the parties. This is not so. A full evidentiary hearing was conducted in this dissolution proceeding. The parties are bound by the evidence they introduced at trial. See In Re Marriage of Church (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 1078, trans. denied; see also Showley v. Showley (1983), Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 1230. The trial court may not reopen the case for the purpose of allowing additional evidence to be presented by either party but may on remand make any adjustments it deems necessary from the evidence already before the court.

Rehearing denied.

NEAL and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur (sitting by designation).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 N.E.2d 919, 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 1127, 1988 WL 46432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheetz-v-scheetz-indctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack