Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-22-2024
Case Style:
Robert Earl Blagrave v. Shelley Ann Blagrave
Case Number: 42C01-1908-DC-117
Judge: Monica C. Gilmore
Court: Circuit Court, Knox County, Indiana
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Vincennes, Indiana family law dissoluton (divorce) lawyers represented the Plaintiff and Defendant.
Husband and Wife were married in 1982 and had two children of the marriage, both of whom were adults at the time of the dissolution proceedings.
Prior to their marriage, Husband worked at Adams-Meyer, Inc. During the marriage, Husband purchased Adams-Meyer and owned and operated it. Wife worked at Old National Bank for twenty-three years; however, from about 2003 to 2019 she also worked at Adams-Meyer.
In June 2019, Adams-Meyer was sold to another company, Pigg Implement, in two phases. In the first phase, Pigg Implement agreed to purchase all machinery, equipment, and tangible assets of Adams-Meyer for an immediate payment of $264,500. In the second phase, Pigg Implement agreed to purchase the real property and certain personal property from Adams-Meyer for $400,000, payable at $2,850 per month over ten years at a 4.5% annual interest rate and with a $196,617.16-balloon payment due on May 1, 2029. At the time Wife filed her petition for dissolution, Adams-Meyer still held a Regions bank account in the amount of $183,136.72.
The parties acquired several parcels of real property during the marriage. Their real property assets included a 50.67-acre tract of land in Knox County. On that land, the parties built their marital residence on 3.67 acres, which residence the trial court later found to have a value of $400,000. The parties refer to the remaining 47 acres as the Farm; on the Farm, they have placed a manufactured residence, which they rent to a third party. The trial court later found the Farm to have a value of $365,000.
During the marriage, title to the Farm and several other real-property assets of the marriage were transferred into the name of a company, REB Rentals, LLC. Husband created REB Rentals to hold title to those marital real properties, and, according to his later testimony but unsupported by any documentation, Husband created REB Rentals such that he and Wife held 80% of the company and their children collectively held the remaining 20%. The trial court later found that Husband had control over all assets and transactions of REB Rentals, that he used funds from REB Rentals' accounts for personal and marital expenses, and that all assets of REB Rentals were marital assets. At the time Wife filed her petition for dissolution, REB Rentals had a checking account in the amount of $46,847.45.
In August 2019, Wife filed her petition for dissolution of the marriage. Thereafter, the trial court held several days of factfinding hearings. At those hearings, Wife introduced a handwritten note from Husband, from approximately 2014, in which he had identified and estimated the value of several firearms in the marital residence to be about $14,705. In its dissolution decree, the court awarded those firearms and numerous other items of personal property to Husband, but the court did not specifically find a value for the firearms or the other items of personal property. Likewise, the court awarded numerous items of personal property to Wife without finding a value to any of those items. Instead, the court found that "the value of the personal property to be retained by the parties is
6
essentially equal." Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 28. Also in its decree, the court awarded a boat to Husband that he had acquired with a friend, Paul Meyer, following Wife's petition for dissolution. The court also awarded to Husband a TD Ameritrade account in the amount of $30,043.
Further, Husband argued to the trial court that he had received several loans from Meyer during the marriage, and that those loans should be considered liabilities of the marital estate. But the trial court found differently, stating that "there is no reasonable" and no "sincere expectation" that those purported loans were ever to be paid back by Husband. Id. at 28-29. The court then unequally divided the marital estate such that Husband received approximately 61% of the identified assets of the estate while Wife received 39%. In doing so, the trial court stated that the unequal division of the estate was attributable to Meyer's gifts to Husband. The court then ordered Husband to pay $33,620 of Wife's attorney's fees, mediation fees, and appraiser fees based in part on Husband's greater earning power.
In re Blagrave, 23A-DC-3022 (Ind. App. Aug 22, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: