Husband motion in Indiana

2024See also Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1162 (Ind. 2016).

2024See Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015).

2023(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 72). [28] In her response to Husband’s motion for summary judgment, Wife relied on Atkins v. Atkins, 534 N.E.2d 760, 762-63 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), trans. denied, in which this court found that the husband had committed constructive fraud by failing to disclose to the wife the fact that a certain stock owned in his name had doubled in value prior to the signing of the settlement agreement and the entry of the decree.

2020See, e.g., Scales, 891 N.E.2d at 1121 (“We will not now allow Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-329 | July 21, 2020 Page 7 of 12 [Husband] to circumvent the trial rules by claiming that he could not have discovered these retirement account figures before the final hearing.

2020We need not reach Wife’s alternative argument because we can resolve this appeal on the initial dispositive issue. 6 “Invited error, which is based on the legal principle of estoppel, forbids a party from taking ‘advantage of an error that [ ]he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of h[is] own neglect or misconduct.’” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”)

2020Waterfield v. Waterfield, 61 N.E.3d 314, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

2020“The burden is on the movant to establish ground[s] for Trial Rule 60(B) relief.” In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010). [17] Trial Rule 60(B) requires that allegations of mistake or excusable neglect under Trial Rule 60(B)(1) or any reason justifying relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) must be supported by a showing of a meritorious claim.

2020“The burden is on the movant to establish ground[s] for Trial Rule 60(B) relief.” In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010). [17] Trial Rule 60(B) requires that allegations of mistake or excusable neglect under Trial Rule 60(B)(1) or any reason justifying relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) must be supported by a showing of a meritorious claim.

2020We need not reach Wife’s alternative argument because we can resolve this appeal on the initial dispositive issue. 6 “Invited error, which is based on the legal principle of estoppel, forbids a party from taking ‘advantage of an error that [ ]he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of h[is] own neglect or misconduct.’” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”)

2020“Whether to grant a motion for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is within the discretion of the trial court, and we reverse only for abuse of that discretion.” Coles v. McDaniel, 117 N.E.3d 573, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

2020An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Fulp v. Gilliland, 998 N.E.2d 204, 210 (Ind. 2013). [10] Husband’s motion was filed pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 59, which provides that a motion to correct error is a prerequisite for appeal when the party seeks to address “[n]ewly discovered material evidence . . . capable of production within thirty (30) days of final judgment which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered and produced at tri

2020See Paulsen, 880 N.E.2d at 313 .

2020See Paulsen, 880 N.E.2d at 313 .

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-DC-329 | July 21, 2020 Page 5 of 12 [11] The decision to grant a Trial Rule 59 motion to correct error on the basis of newly discovered evidence trial “is an equitable one, and requires the court to balance the alleged injustice suffered by the party moving for relief against the interest of the winning party and society in general in the finality of litigation.” Faulkinbury v. Broshears, 28 N.E.3d 1115, 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal citations omitted).

2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-2194 | March 4, 2019 Page 7 of 9 Supreme Court stated that “[i]t may be reasonably argued that in many marriages the joint efforts of both spouses are invested so that one of them may earn pension rights.” In re Marriage of Adams, 535 N.E.2d 124, 127 (Ind. 1989).

2019Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589-590 , 84 S. Ct. 841, 849-50 (1964) (citations omitted), reh’g denied. [11] In the case before us, the trial court impeded Husband’s ability to show good cause as to why the motion for continuance should be granted when it denied Husband’s motion to continue without hearing any argument.

2019Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589-590 , 84 S. Ct. 841, 849-50 (1964) (citations omitted), reh’g denied. [11] In the case before us, the trial court impeded Husband’s ability to show good cause as to why the motion for continuance should be granted when it denied Husband’s motion to continue without hearing any argument.

2019See Hess, 679 N.E.2d at 154 (holding “among the things to be considered on appeal from the denial of a 1 We acknowledge that these facts were not presented to the trial court under oath. 2 The Marion County Local Rule LR49-TR3.1-201, regarding the withdrawal of an appearance, states that: “[p]ermission to withdraw shall be given only after the withdrawing attorney has given his client ten days written notice of his intention to withdraw. . . .” Moreover, pursuant to the rule: The letter of withdrawal [to the attorney’s client] shall explain to the client that failure to secure new counsel may

2019Although Husband terminated his attorney, Husband was not provided ten-day notice of his attorney’s withdrawal as required by the local rule. 2 See Hess v. Hess, 679 N.E.2d 153 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (“Although we cannot say that Husband is wholly free from fault for his counsel’s withdrawal, we similarly cannot say that, in dissolution proceedings where emotions run high, attorney- client disagreement and conflict are unique.”).

2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-DR-377 | March 18, 2019 Page 15 of 29 Discussion and Decision [16] Where, as here, the trial court enters special findings and conclusions pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A), we apply a two-tiered standard of review.3 Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d 368, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2019See also In re Marriage of Turner v. Turner, 785 N.E.2d 259, 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Trojnar v. Trojnar, 656 N.E.2d 287 , 289–90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (explaining that Trial Rule 76(B) allows for 1 The trial court granted Husband’s motion to stay pending appeal.

2019See also In re Marriage of Turner v. Turner, 785 N.E.2d 259, 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Trojnar v. Trojnar, 656 N.E.2d 287 , 289–90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (explaining that Trial Rule 76(B) allows for 1 The trial court granted Husband’s motion to stay pending appeal.

2019See Ind. Appellate Rule 1 (“The Court may, upon the motion of a party or the Court’s own motion, permit deviation from these Rules.”); see also In re O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014) (failure to file a timely appeal “does not deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.”).

2016“The court’s power to award spousal maintenance is wholly within its discretion[.]” Spivey v. Topper, 876 N.E.2d 781, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “‘The presumption that the court correctly applied the law in making an award of spousal maintenance is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to the consideration of a case on appeal.’” Id. (quoting Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 651 N.E.2d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied). [9] “A trial court may award only ‘three, quite limited’ varieties of post-dissolution maintenance: spousal incapacity maintenance, caregiver maintenance, a

2016“The court’s power to award spousal maintenance is wholly within its discretion[.]” Spivey v. Topper, 876 N.E.2d 781, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “‘The presumption that the court correctly applied the law in making an award of spousal maintenance is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to the consideration of a case on appeal.’” Id. (quoting Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 651 N.E.2d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied). [9] “A trial court may award only ‘three, quite limited’ varieties of post-dissolution maintenance: spousal incapacity maintenance, caregiver maintenance, a

2016See Spivey, 876 N.E.2d at 784 . [14] Lastly, we address Husband’s challenge to the trial court’s order regarding the marital residence, which the trial court included in the marital pot and awarded to Wife. [15] The division of marital property is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion.

2016Co. v. Good, 919 N.E.2d 144, 153-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans denied. “‘The only limitation on the trial court in determining an appropriate sanction is that the sanction must be just.’” Prime Mortgage USA, 1 We note that in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the sanctions order, Wife has failed to provide this court with a copy of the transcript relating to the January 23, 2015 hearing on Husband’s motion for sanctions relating to his motion to compel discovery.

2016“The court’s power to award spousal maintenance is wholly within its discretion[.]” Spivey v. Topper, 876 N.E.2d 781, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “‘The presumption that the court correctly applied the law in making an award of spousal maintenance is one of the strongest presumptions applicable to the consideration of a case on appeal.’” Id. (quoting Fuehrer v. Fuehrer, 651 N.E.2d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied). [9] “A trial court may award only ‘three, quite limited’ varieties of post-dissolution maintenance: spousal incapacity maintenance, caregiver maintenance, a

2016Love v. Love, 10 N.E.3d 1005, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).