546 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)
In October 1987, the trial court dissolved the twenty-year marriage of Irvin Ramsey and Peggy Ramsey.1 The marriage produced five children: Eric, age nineteen and living at home while attending Ball State University; Dawn, age sixteen; Leif, age fourteen; Ian, age eleven; and Brandie, age nine.2 The wife was awarded custody of the minor children.3
At the time of trial, the husband worked for the Delco-Remy Division of General Motors and earned a gross weekly income of approximately five hundred dollars with net earnings of three hundred fifty dollars per week.4 The wife worked in the cafeteria at the local high school and earned an average net income of sixty dollars per week.5 The marital residence, the parties' most valuable asset, was worth approximately thirty-seven thousand nine hundred dollars subject to a mortgage with an unpaid balance of approximately fourteen thousand dollars, with monthly mortgage payments of two hundred sixty-five dollars plus other housing expenses.6
The trial court divided the property evenly, ordering the marital residence sold with net proceeds divided evenly between the parties and awarding the wife one half of the husband's pension valued as of September 1, 1986.7 The husband was ordered to pay one hundred seventy dollars per week in child support, an additional two hundred dollars per year per child for clothing, to provide health insurance, and to pay one hundred percent of uninsured medical expenses, as well as college expenses for Eric and future college expenses for the other children as necessary.8
The wife appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the sale of the marital residence rather than awarding her its use during the minority of the children. She also challenged the amount of child support. The record shows that the husband testified he wanted to continue seeing his children daily, rented an apartment three or four blocks from the marital residence, and suggested that the wife could refinance the home to pay him for his interest while she and the children remained there.9 Both parents expressed a desire for the wife and children to remain in the marital home. The wife testified she could afford the mortgage and upkeep expenses but could not provide equivalent accommodations elsewhere on her resources.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the immediate sale of the marital residence rather than allowing the custodial parent to retain its use during the minority of the children?10
Under IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-11 the trial court divides marital property in a just and reasonable manner and may order sale of the property with proceeds divided between the parties.11 Review is for abuse of discretion, which exists only when the result is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and reasonable inferences drawn from them.12 The statute expressly permits consideration of the economic circumstances of each spouse and the desirability of awarding the family residence to the custodial spouse.13
No. In October 1987 the trial court dissolved the twenty-year marriage of Irvin Ramsey and Peggy Ramsey and awarded the wife custody of the minor children.14 The husband earned net weekly income of three hundred fifty dollars while the wife earned sixty dollars.15 The marital residence valued at thirty-seven thousand nine hundred dollars with a fourteen thousand dollar mortgage was ordered sold and the net proceeds divided evenly.16 Although the husband testified he wished to see the children daily, rented an apartment three or four blocks away, and suggested the wife refinance to retain the home, the court determined sale was appropriate after weighing the circumstances.17
The decision does not constitute an abuse of discretion because the result aligns with the logic and effect of the facts presented at trial.18
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the immediate sale of the marital residence.19
Related opinions on this issue
Judge Miller dissented on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering immediate sale.20 He emphasized that both parents wanted the wife and children to remain in the home, the wife could afford the mortgage and upkeep from her salary and support payments, and relocation would impose additional trauma and a lower standard of living on the five children.21 He would have remanded with instructions to permit the wife to reside in the residence during the children's minority.22
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of child support?23
Under IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-12 the trial court may order reasonable child support after considering the financial resources of the custodial parent, the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not dissolved, the physical or mental condition and educational needs of the children, and the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.24 The determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be reversed only if clearly against the logic and effect of the circumstances.25
No. The husband was ordered to pay one hundred seventy dollars per week in child support plus two hundred dollars per year per child for clothing, to maintain health insurance, to pay all uninsured medical expenses, and to cover college expenses for Eric and the other children as needed.26 The husband's net weekly income of three hundred fifty dollars substantially exceeded the wife's sixty-dollar net weekly income.27 The court considered the statutory factors including the wife's limited earning capacity while caring for five children and the children's educational needs.28 The award reflects a rational application of the facts to the statutory criteria without abuse of discretion.29
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of child support.30
Related opinions on this issue
Judge Miller also dissented on the child support issue.31 He argued that the wife's child-rearing responsibilities for five children severely limited her ability to contribute financially, that the children's standard of living would drop twenty-five percent under the existing order, and that the husband's resources allowed greater support because he was already assisting his sister and nephew.32 He noted the wife's meager earnings of sixty dollars per week contrasted with the husband's three hundred fifty dollars net weekly income.33
He would have reversed and remanded for a larger award after proper consideration of the statutory factors in IND.CODE 31-1-11.5-12.34