Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 (2026)
Presumption for equal division of marital property; rebuttal
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. The court shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable. However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence concerning the following factors, that an equal division would not be just and reasonable:
(1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing.
(2) The extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse:
(A) before the marriage; or
(B) through inheritance or gift.
(3) The economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of the property is to become effective, including the desirability of awarding the family residence or the right to dwell in the family residence for such periods as the court considers just to the spouse having custody of any children.
(4) The conduct of the parties during the marriage as related to the disposition or dissipation of their property.
(5) The earnings or earning ability of the parties as related to:
(A) a final division of property; and
(B) a final determination of the property rights of the parties.
[Pre-1997 Recodification Citation: 31-1-11.5-11(c).]
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 287
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: In Re: the Marriage of: Renita A. Marek & Edward Marek (mem. dec.), 47 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re: the Marriage of: Renita A. Marek & Edward Marek (mem. dec.), 47 N.E.3d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 . However, the presumption of equal division may be rebutted by a party who presents evidence that an equal division would not be just and reasonable because of the contribution each spouse made to the acquisition of property; the extent to which property…”
Eye v. Eye, 849 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. However, this presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence of the following factors: (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income…”
Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5 (1998); Coffey, 649 N.”
Leever v. Leever, 919 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. The marital property to be divided includes both assets and liabilities.”
Chase v. Chase, 690 N.E.2d 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “Whether, in accordance with Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5 [1] , the trial court properly assigned more than fifty percent of the marital assets to Ernest's wife, Mary Chase ("Mary"), without stating its reasons for doing so.”
Bizik v. Bizik, 753 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Specifically, Dan contends that Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5 requires a trial court to divide marital property equally, in a just and reasonable manner, and that here the trial court failed to do so because "the trial court has already calculated the disparity of the parties' earnings…”
Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. This presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence of the following factors, that an equal division would not be just and reasonable: (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property,…”
Augspurger v. Hudson, 802 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “See Ind.Code Ann. § 31-15-7-5 (West 1998). Moreover, Husband asserts that in the Decree, the trial court failed to consider the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time the disposition of property was to become effective.”
Maxwell v. Maxwell, 850 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “See Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. Therefore, I would reverse and remand for redistribution of the marital estate in light of all relevant common law and statutory criteria.”
Hatten v. Hatten, 825 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. This presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence of the following factors: (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property, regardless of whether the contribution was income producing.”
Phillip J. Troyer v. Tracy L. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 . The factors a court may consider include: the contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property; the extent to which the property was acquired by each spouse before the marriage or through inheritance or gifts; the economic circumstances of…”
Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “While Husband is correct in his statement that a trial court may deviate from an equal division of property in certain limited circumstances, see Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5, there is nothing in this statute which suggests that the trial court must deviate from the traditional 6%o…”
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(1) — 8 cases
Lambert v. Lambert, 839 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Mason v. Mason, 775 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Wilson v. Wilson, 732 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Bryan E. Mitten v. Cynthia L. Mitten, 44 N.E.3d 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Lee v. Walro (In re Walro), 508 B.R. 399 (S.D. Ind. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(1)(2) — 1 case
Wallace v. Wallace, 714 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(1)(2)(4) — 1 case
Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “While Husband is correct in his statement that a trial court may deviate from an equal division of property in certain limited circumstances, see Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5, there is nothing in this statute which suggests that the trial court must deviate from the traditional 6%o…”
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(2) — 5 cases
Grathwohl v. Garrity, 871 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Marriage of Fobar v. Vonderahe, 756 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Frederick D. Petre, Jr. v. Valerie J. Petre (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
Katie C. Graber v. Dale Graber (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Martin E. Rogness v. Roberta L. Rogness (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(2)(A) — 3 cases
Beard v. Beard, 758 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
William H. Lane v. Connie S. Lane (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(2)(B) — 5 cases
Leever v. Leever, 919 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. The marital property to be divided includes both assets and liabilities.”
Mary Ann Crider v. Robert Crider, 26 N.E.3d 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Jeffrey H. Stanley v. Lisa Stanley (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
Christina Lopp v. Jason Lopp (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).
Samuel Otto Dean v. Denise Darlene Dean (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(3) — 6 cases
Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5 (1998); Coffey, 649 N.”
Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5. This presumption may be rebutted by a party who presents relevant evidence, including evidence of the following factors, that an equal division would not be just and reasonable: (1) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition of the property,…”
Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 2010).
Polacheck v. Polacheck, 2013 Ohio 5788 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Lee v. Walro (In re Walro), 508 B.R. 399 (S.D. Ind. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(4) — 11 cases
Hardebeck v. Hardebeck, 917 N.E.2d 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “While Husband is correct in his statement that a trial court may deviate from an equal division of property in certain limited circumstances, see Ind.Code § 31-15-7-5, there is nothing in this statute which suggests that the trial court must deviate from the traditional 6%o…”
Smith v. Smith, 854 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Lesley Farley Pitcavage v. Joel Michael Pitcavage, 11 N.E.3d 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Marriage of Bojrab v. Bojrab, 786 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(5) — 8 cases
Jay Myoung Yoon v. Sunsook Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 1999).
Marriage of Fobar v. Vonderahe, 756 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Robin L. Rajski v. Robert Rajski (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Shane Vanlandingham v. Sherry Vanlandingham (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Russell Lawless v. Leslie Lawless (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5(c) — 1 case
Marriage of England v. England, 865 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.