MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 16 2016, 7:42 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Dan J. May Tyler D. Helmond
Kokomo, Indiana Voyles Zahn & Paul
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Angela Gamester, February 16, 2016
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
52A05-1506-DR-545
v. Appeal from the Miami Superior
Court
Russell Gamester, The Honorable J. David Grund,
Appellee-Repondent Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
52D01-1011-DR-390
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 1 of 9
[1] Angela Gamester appeals the judgment of the trial court, which valued several
marital assets as of the date of the final hearing rather than the date of the
dissolution petition and ordered child support in the amount of $80 per week.
Finding that the former decision was within the trial court’s discretion to make
and that the latter decision was invited error (if error at all), we affirm.
Facts
[2] Russell (Husband) and Angela Gamester (Wife) were married on August 29,
1992, and Wife filed for dissolution on November 8, 2010. During their
marriage, the Gamesters operated several closely-held corporations of which
they were the principals. Three of these entities managed mobile home
communities, and another was involved in motor sports. Often, the Gamesters
would shift funds from one corporation to another to pay various obligations.
[3] Soon after the separation, the Gamesters agreed to a preliminary order. The
order included an agreement that “Husband shall temporarily maintain
authority to conduct business and shall be responsible for paying expenses
associated with all businesses in which the parties have an interest. . . .”
Appellant’s App. 34. Russell also “agree[d] to provide copies of the business
records maintained during this action for review by Wife’s attorney if
requested.” Id. The order provided that “Husband shall pay to Wife the
weekly amount of $80.00 as temporary child support for [their daughter] and
temporary maintenance.” Id. at 35.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 9
[4] The trial court held a three-day final hearing on August 1, 2012, August 2,
2012, and—following a series of continuances—over a year later on August 14,
2013. The trial court heard evidence that three of the corporations had held
roughly $131,000 (collectively) in operating accounts as of the date of the
preliminary order. As of August 2012, those three operating accounts had been
emptied and those three corporations reduced to nullities. A fourth corporation
had an appraised value of $81,000.
[5] Husband testified that the accounts were depleted due to the economic
recession. He told the trial court that he had moved funds around to cover
various liabilities and that the fourth corporation only survived because he had
replenished it with funds from the other three. Wife argued that he had
dissipated or pocketed the money.
[6] The trial court issued a final order on November 8, 2013. Regarding the
corporate entities, the trial court found the following:
The Court finds that the operating account balances as the same
existed on or about the date of filing are marital assets subject to
division. This as they were known and quantified assets in
existence as of the date of filing. [Husband] testified to the
operating accounts being depleted due to business losses during
the separation period. [Husband] having been, by provisional
agreement, given authority to continue operation of the
aforementioned business entities. [Husband] presented no
accounting to detail how these monies were used or lost with the
exception of a sewer repair bill for which the account balance of
Gamester Motorsports, Inc., was reduced by the Court as the
sewer bill was paid from that account. The Court finds the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 9
operating accounts to be marital assets to be included in the
marital pot subject to division.
Id. at 19-20. This finding was reinforced in the attached balance sheet, which
divided the $131,000’s worth of operating accounts evenly between the parties.
In addition, the trial court ordered that Husband “shall continue to pay to
[Wife] for the support of [their] child the weekly sum of $80.00, as established
by agreement in the parties’ Preliminary Order. . . .” Id. at 17.
[7] Both parties filed motions to correct error on December 10, 2013.1 The trial
court conducted a hearing on these motions on February 5, 2015.2 The trial
court responded to these motions in a clarification order on May 22, 2015. It
reiterated that the operating accounts had been reduced to zero between the
preliminary order and the final hearing. But then it said,
In its Decree of Dissolution, the Court did not intend to require a
transfer of any assets. By apportioning equal amounts to each
party, the Court intends to recognize that, although there was an
operating account balance as of the date of filing, [the business]
was an ongoing enterprise which was operated to its conclusion
as of the final dissolution decree. Therefore, no actual transfer of
assets between the parties was to occur…. It was the intention of
1
We note that Wife’s counsel has included Wife’s but not Husband’s motion to correct error in the appendix.
We strongly urge parties to provide a full record of events so that we can understand what happened at the
trial level.
2
Nor did Wife’s counsel provide a transcript of this hearing. The parties argue over whether there was any
evidence heard or whether it was purely arguments of counsel; regardless, we would have appreciated being
able to review the hearing that led to the final judgment from which the parties appeal. The omission of
Husband’s motion to correct error, along with the omission of the transcript of this hearing, leaves us
guessing as to why the trial court decided to issue a clarification order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 9
the Court in distributing the parties’ corporate entities to
recognize that the use of the funds during the pendency of the
dissolution resulted in a net valuation such that neither party
would actually receive any funds other than those existing in any
of the operating accounts as of the date of the decree.
Id. at 31. The trial court then said that it meant to evenly split the operating
accounts as those accounts existed at the time of the hearing: for the three
corporations, this meant an equal division of $0. Wife now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Wife has two arguments on appeal: (1) that the trial court committed reversible
error when it decided to use the value of the operating accounts after they had
been depleted; and (2) that the trial court did not have sufficient evidence to set
the child support amount at $80 a week.
[9] As to Wife’s first argument, our standard of review is well settled. The division
of marital property is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will
reverse only for an abuse of discretion. Love v. Love, 10 N.E.3d 1005, 1012 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2014). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court, or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law or disregards evidence of
factors listed in the controlling statute. Id. We will consider only the evidence
most favorable to the trial court’s disposition of the property, and we will not
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Id.
[10] Wife contends that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 9
[i]t defies common sense, and is completely illogical [to] allow
Russell to spend $131,161.00 of the divisible marital pot during
the provisional period . . . and then have the court rule some 2
years later that it had no intention of granting Angela her ½ of
the funds spent by Russell squandered by Russell [sic] during the
provisional period without any accounting whatsoever.
Appellant’s Br. 12. While this statement is technically correct, we believe that it
misstates the facts. A common sense reading of the trial court’s decision,
particularly in light of the clarification order, suggests that the trial court did not
agree that Husband squandered the accounts. Our understanding of the trial
court’s decision is that the trial court believed Husband’s testimony that he
spent the money from the operating accounts on necessary business expenses.
[11] This interpretation does tend to contradict the findings of the trial court’s
November 8, 2013, final order. What appears to have happened is the
following: the trial court decided to value the accounts as of the date of the
preliminary order, and divided those amounts evenly; then Husband filed a
motion to correct error in which he reiterated his argument that the accounts
should be valued as of the date of the hearing; and then, finally, the trial court
decided to change its position in favor of Husband’s valuation date, but
misremembered that it had done the opposite in its previous order.
[12] We note that “our Supreme Court has made it clear that the trial court has
discretion to value the marital assets at any date between the date of filing the
dissolution petition and the date of the hearing.” Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725
N.E.2d 487, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Thus, it is clear that the trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 9
would have been within its discretion, given that there is sufficient evidence in
the record to find that Husband did not dissipate the funds, if it had originally
chosen to value the operating accounts as of the date of the hearing. Wife’s
argument boils down to a contention that the trial court abused its discretion
when it changed its valuation date after reviewing the motions to correct error.
We decline to penalize a trial court for changing its decision after receiving a
motion to correct error; indeed, the entire point of the motion to correct error is
to enable the trial court to alter its judgment. Insofar as Wife argues that the
trial court should have chosen the filing date rather than the hearing date to
value the asset, this amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence and
substitute our judgment for the trial court’s—a request we decline.
[13] Wife’s second argument is that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to set
the child support at $80 per week. Indiana Code section 31-16-6-1 sets out a list
of relevant factors a trial court should consider in setting a child support
amount. Moreover, our Supreme Court has promulgated Child Support
Guidelines and worksheets to aid trial courts in setting child support amounts.
In neither the final order nor the clarification order did the trial court make
findings relevant to the factors listed in the statute, nor did it base its decision
on any verified child support worksheets.
[14] Father argues that Wife has waived this argument by not raising it in her
motion to correct error. This notion is clearly incorrect, since “a Motion to
Correct Error is not a prerequisite for appeal. . . .” Ind. Trial Rule 59(A). But
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 7 of 9
we find another reason that Wife’s second argument is not properly before us:
insofar as the trial court erred, the error was invited by Wife.
[15] It is well settled that a party may not take advantage of an error that she
commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or
misconduct. Witte v. Mundy ex rel. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind. 2005).
Neither Wife nor Husband submitted child support worksheets to the trial
court. If this were simply a case of oversight, we would be tempted to remand
so that the trial court could consider additional evidence. But in this case, the
trial court explicitly requested such evidence and neither party provided it. At
the end of the second day of hearings, the trial court told the parties
I try very hard to avoid altering the provisional order . . . unless
there’s some significant change in circumstances that occurs
between the provisional order and the final hearing . . . and if in
fact a party believes that the provisional order needs to be
modified then I request that a petition to do so be filed and we
have a hearing in regard to modifying the provisional order.
Tr. 419. In other words, the trial court informed the parties that it was going to
order $80 in weekly support unless either party said something, and neither
party said anything.3 The trial court’s order does lack the evidence and findings
3
We would like to note our concern, however, with this statement of the trial court. The trial court seems to
suggest that it applies the standard associated with modification or revocation of a child support order,
codified in Indiana Code section 31-16-8-1, to the determination of what amount of child support should be
ordered in the first instance. Parties do not need to show any change of circumstance between a provisional
order and the final dissolution order; the amount set in the final dissolution order should be based off of the
factors listed in Indiana Code section 31-16-6-1 and the child support worksheets. Parties are not bound to
the amount set in a provisional order.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 9
typically seen in child support orders, but this lack was invited by Wife’s
inaction, and is therefore not appealable.
[16] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 52A05-1506-DR-545 | February 16, 2016 Page 9 of 9