 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goossens v. Goossens6/8/2005
er a month and a half before the final hearing, and there was ample time in which to secure other representation. It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standard as are licensed lawyers. Hess v. Hess, 679 N.E.2d 153, 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Because the evidentiary issues of which Husband now complains were due to his own failure, there is no reversible error.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., concurs.
BAILEY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
BAILEY, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part
With the exception of Issue III, I concur with the majority opinion. However, I dissent from the affirmation of the property division at issue, because I cannot agree with the dissolution court's order that Husband's judgment of $10,752.13 is "payable without interest." (App. 11.) Husband is entitled to post judgment interest on the equalization judgment awarded him (1) because post-judgment interest is mandated by statute and (2) an equal division of marital assets is mandated by statute, absent a specific reason for deviation.
When property in a marital estate is divided pursuant to the parties' agreement and one party is ordered to pay the other, the order is a money judgment that accrues interest from the date that the judgment was entered. Williamson v. Rutana, 736 N.E.2d 1247, 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); Irvine v. Irvine, 685 N.E.2d 67, 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Post-judgment interest is statutorily mandated for money judgments. Williamson, 736 N.E.2d at 1249 (citing Ind. Code ยง 24-4.6-1-101).
According to the court order here, Husband is not entitled to his money at a fixed time. This does not, however, vitiate Husband's entitlement to interest. Dependent upon the timing of a triggering event, Husband could be deprived of the use of his money for many years. For example, the child who will someday be emancipated is now only seven years old. The specific intent of the dissolution court was to divide the marital estate equally. No statutory ground to support a deviation from the presumptive equal division of marital assets was found by the trial court. Nevertheless, the practical effect of permitting one spouse to withhold an equalization judgment payment for many years, without interest, is to depreciate the value of the judgment awarded. In other words, depending upon the timing of the triggering event, Husband would receive somewhat less or much less than the value of one-half the marital estate. This is contrary to the trial court's intent, and contrary to statutory mandate. Therefore, I dissent.
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.
|
|