Shannon R. Miller v. Steven M. Miller

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 19, 2025
• Docket: 25A-DN-6
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Shannon R. Miller, May 19 2025, 8:56 am

Appellant-Petitioner CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

v.

Steven M. Miller, Appellee-Respondent

May 19, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-DN-6 Appeal from the Gibson Superior Court The Honorable Roman J. Ricker, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 26D01-1903-DN-354

Opinion by Judge Mathias Judges Foley and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-DN-6 | May 19, 2025 Page 1 of 6 Mathias, Judge.

[1] Shannon Miller (“Wife”) appeals the Gibson Superior Court’s final decree

dissolving her marriage to Steven Miller (“Husband”). Wife presents a single

issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion with

the valuation date it chose for Husband’s 401(k) plan.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In October 2011, Husband and Wife married. During the marriage, Husband

worked as a diesel mechanic, and Wife “held numerous jobs” until she became

ill with rheumatoid arthritis in 2014. Miller v. Miller, No. 22A-DN-2116, 2023

WL 7127691, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2023) (“Miller I”). In September

2016, Wife began receiving Social Security Disability benefits.

[4] In March 2019, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The parties

were unable to settle the marital estate, so, after a hearing, the trial court

divided the marital assets as follows:

(a) credited Husband $30,000.00 in equity in the Marital Real Estate; (b) segregated Husband’s 401(k) from the other marital assets and awarded $115,000.00 to Husband and $65,000.00 to Wife; (c) divided the remainder of the marital estate equally (50/50) between the parties; (d) found that Wife committed dissipation by failing to collect rent on one of the mobile homes; and denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees and spousal maintenance.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-DN-6 | May 19, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Id. at *2. Wife appealed, and this Court

affirm[ed] the trial court’s determination that: (1) Wife committed dissipation by failing to collect rent on one of the mobile homes; (2) Wife is not entitled to incapacity maintenance; and (3) Wife is responsible for her own attorney’s fees. We reverse[d] the trial court’s decision: (1) crediting Husband with $30,000.00 of equity in the Marital Real Estate; (2) segregating Husband’s 401[(]k[)] from the other marital property and then deviating from a 50/50 division by awarding $115,000.00 to Husband and $65,000.00 to Wife; and (3) excluding the three debts in the marital pot for division.

Id. at *12. Accordingly, we remanded with instructions for the trial court to

divide the marital estate consistent with our opinion.

[5] On remand, the trial court included Husband’s 401(k) in the marital estate and

divided the entire pot 50/50. In making that determination, the trial court, as it

did the first time, valued Husband’s 401(k) as of the date that Wife had filed the

dissolution petition. Wife then moved to correct error and alleged in relevant

part that, in addition to the award of fifty percent of Husband’s 401(k), the trial

court should have awarded her “investment growth, gains and/or losses of her

portion of the 401(k) from the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of

Marriage of March 4, 2019[,] to present so that a Qualified Domestic Relations

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-DN-6 | May 19, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Order can be drafted and processed[.]” 1 Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 63. The trial

court denied that request. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her

request that she be awarded any gains or losses of Husband’s 401(k) from the

date she filed her dissolution petition “to present.” Appellant’s Br. at 12. Wife

maintains that the only way to ensure the fifty-fifty division of the marital estate

is to account for any and all gains or losses in the plan’s value. We do not agree.

[7] It is well settled that the division of marital property is within the sound

discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion.

In re Marriage of Marek, 47 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

And the trial court has discretion in valuing the marital assets to set any date

between the date of filing the dissolution petition and the date of the hearing.

Eyler v. Eyler, 492 N.E.2d 1071, 1074 (Ind. 1986).

[8] Wife argues that Husband has received a windfall because the value of the

401(k) has increased significantly since the valuation date. And she cites several

cases in support of her contention that the trial court abused its discretion when

1 Wife raised this issue in her brief on appeal in Miller I, but we did not reach the merits of the issue for lack of cogent argument. See Miller I, 2023 WL 7127691, at *5. In this appeal, Husband argues that this issue is barred by the law of the case doctrine. We disagree and exercise our discretion to address the merits of the issue here. See Dean V. Kruse Found., Inc. v. Gates, 973 N.E.2d 583, 590 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-DN-6 | May 19, 2025 Page 4 of 6 it declined to award her a share of those gains. 2 But each of those cases is

distinguishable, and we reject Wife’s argument.

[9] In Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996), our Supreme Court addressed a

husband’s argument that the trial court had abused its discretion when it valued

his family business as of the date of his separation from his wife because the

evidence showed that the value had decreased significantly thereafter. On

appeal, another panel of this Court had held that, where “the value of a marital

asset changes radically between the date of final separation and the final

hearing, it is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to select a valuation date

that does not account for the events contributing to that change.” Quillen v.

Quillen, 659 N.E.2d 566, 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), vacated by 671 N.E.2d 98

(Ind. 1996).

[10] Our Supreme Court disapproved of that holding and quoted from Judge

Hoffman’s dissent as follows: “‘Because the standard currently allows the trial

court to choose a date which recognizes changes in the value of the assets

between the date of final separation and the final hearing, the [majority’s]

modification serves only to limit the discretion of the trier of fact.’” Quillen, 671

N.E.2d at 103 (quoting Quillen, 659 N.E.2d at 580 (Hoffman, J., dissenting)).

Our Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he selection of the valuation date for

any particular marital asset has the effect of allocating the risk of change in the

2 The record does not demonstrate whether the current value has grown or diminished since Wife filed her brief on appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-DN-6 | May 19, 2025 Page 5 of 6 value of that asset between the date of valuation and date of the hearing. We

entrust this allocation to the discretion of the trial court.” Id. at 103.

[11] Accordingly, here, the trial court had discretion to choose the valuation date of

Husband’s 401(k) and to allocate to him the risk of change in its value. Wife has

not shown any abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

[12] Affirmed.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT April L. Edwards Boonville, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Daniel A. Moon Daniel Moon Law Office, LLC Princeton, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-DN-6 | May 19, 2025 Page 6 of 6