 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goossens v. Goossens6/8/2005
Appellant-Respondent, Gerard Goossens ("Husband"), appeals the trial court's decree in the dissolution of his marriage with Appellee-Petitioner, Penny Goossens ("Wife"). Upon appeal, Husband presents four issues, which we restate as follows:
I. Whether the value the trial court assigned to a house owned by the parties was supported by the evidence;
II. Whether the trial court erred in calculating the value of the marital estate;
III. Whether the trial court should have awarded Husband post-judgment interest on the judgment the court awarded to him; and
IV. Whether the trial court erred in failing to list and distribute marital debts other than the mortgages on their real property.
We affirm.
The record reveals that the parties were married in 1993 and separated in 2000. The parties had one child, H.G. After a hearing held on October 5, 2004, the trial court on the following day entered a decree dissolving the parties' marriage.
Husband complains that the trial court erred in assigning value to the parties' house located at 818 East Jackson Boulevard in Elkhart. Wife filed a verified financial statement on September 24, 2004, wherein the value of this house was listed as $97,500. At the hearing, Wife submitted into evidence as Exhibit C the tax assessment for the Jackson Boulevard house, which also listed an assessed value of $97,500. Upon direct examination by her counsel, the following colloquy occurred:
"Q: Do you have a particular value in your mind as to what this particular piece of real estate is worth?
A: No.
Q: [Do you] ave any estimate as to what you think it might be worth?
A: Ninety thousand (90,000.00).
Q: If you indicated ninety-seven thousand, five hundred (97,500), would you have any dispute over that amount?
A: No.
Q: That's what you had indicated you had thought it was worth?
A: Okay. Yeah.
Q: That's the only information you had concerning the value of that property?
A: Yes.
Q: You had no additional information?
A: No." Transcript at 39.
In the dissolution decree, the trial court assigned the Jackson Boulevard house a value of $90,000, stating:
"The court finds that the value of the property located at 818 E. Jackson Blvd. is $90,000.00 (Wife's testimony) and has a mortgage balance of $33,000.00 for a net equity of $57,000.00." Appellant's Appendix at 10. Husband now complains that the trial court's finding is contrary to the evidence.
We review the trial court's decision in ascertaining the value of property in a dissolution action for an abuse of discretion. Sanjari v. Sanjari, 755 N.E.2d 1186, 1191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Where the trial court's valuation of property is within the range of values supported by the evidence, the court does not abuse its discretion. Id. at 1191-92.
Wife argues that the trial court's finding was not an abuse of discretion in that Wife testified that she believed the Jackson Boulevard house was worth $90,000. We agree. Although the evidence presented by Wife would support a finding that the Jackson Boulevard house was worth $97,500, there was evidence that Wife believed the house to be worth $90,000. Whether or not we would have come to the same conclusion as the trial court had we been the finder of fact, the fact remains that the trial court's finding was within the range of values supported by the evidence. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assigning value to the Jackson Boulevard property.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|