![]() ![]() Wife’s salon is located in a trailer that she rents, and Wife does “not have a walk-in business. Wife testified that she is a self-employed hair stylist with “a one chair, one sink, one dryer salon” and that she could “only see one client, sometimes a second, at a time.” (Tr. However, Husband requested that this account “be set over to without receiving any credit or set off.” (Tr. He also agreed that “through the twenty-some years of marriage, was the intent that be used for and wife for retirement if wife was still around, yes, it would be used for her, too.” (Tr. Husband agreed that the growth in the account was “an example of the wonders of compounding. Husband further testified that the Hilliard Lyons account was a deferred tax annuity and that he had not made any additional contributions to the account after he had opened it. At the dissolution hearing, Husband testified that his yearly salary was “slightly over a hundred thousand dollars per year. In May 2016, Husband filed a petition to dissolve his twenty-six-year marriage to Wife. ![]() ![]() The parties had two children who were born in February 1991 and May 1996. In 1989, Husband married Wife, who had received an associate’s degree in cosmetology in 1985 and who worked as a hair stylist. In 1987, Husband opened the Hilliard Lyons account in his name and deposited $15,000 in it, intending to let the money grow until his Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 15A05-1711-DR-2628 | Septem of 10 retirement. Facts Husband received an engineering degree from Rose Hulman Institute of Technology in 1982 and has worked primarily in the aviation industry since that time. Issue Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that Husband had rebutted the presumption that an equal division of property was just and reasonable and awarded the entire Hilliard Lyons account to Husband. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded that Husband had rebutted the presumption that an equal division of marital property was just and reasonable and awarded the entire Hilliard Lyons account to Husband, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to equally divide between the parties the interest on the Hilliard Lyons account that accrued during the course of the parties’ marriage. Wife now appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded the entire Hilliard Lyons account to Husband. During the course of the parties’ twenty-six-year marriage, although no additional contributions were made to the Hilliard Lyons account, the account grew to $206,950, all of which the trial court awarded to Husband. Husband had funded this account with a $15,000 deposit in 1987, two years before the parties’ Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 15A05-1711-DR-2628 | Septem of 10 marriage. When dividing the property, the trial court awarded Husband the entirety of what is now known as the Hilliard Lyons retirement account (“the Hilliard Lyons account”). Statement of the Case The trial court dissolved the marriage of Jamie Gish (“Wife”) and Patrick Gish (“Husband”) and divided their assets. Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit Court The Honorable James D. Patrick Michael Gish, Appellee-Petitioner. ![]() Patrick Magrath Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Madison, Indiana Leanna Weissmann Lawrenceburg, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Jamie Lynn Gish, SeptemAppellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. FILED Sep 28 2018, 9:28 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE R. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |