MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this May 12 2016, 8:28 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK
precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
David W. Stone IV Zachary J. Stock
Stone Law Office & Legal Research Carmel, Indiana
Anderson, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Richard Hermida, May 12, 2016
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
33A05-1509-DR-1586
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court.
The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane,
Cynthia Hermida, Judge.
Appellee-Respondent. Cause No. 33C02-1409-DR-209
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Richard Hermida appeals the trial court’s valuation of a bank account upon the
dissolution of his marriage to Cynthia Hermida. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1509-DR-1586 | May 12, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Issue
[2] Richard presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the
trial court erred in valuing one of the bank accounts of the marriage.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Richard and Cynthia married on May 17, 1982. During the marriage, Richard
handled the parties’ finances. One of the accounts in existence during the
marriage was a Signature Series Gold account at Citizens State Bank. On
September 24, 2014, the parties separated. A final hearing was held on August
26, 2015. The trial court issued its decree of dissolution on September 3, 2015,
assigning a value to, among other things, the Signature Series Gold account and
dividing the marital estate. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it assigned a
value of $53,657 to the Signature Series Gold account. We review a trial
court’s valuation of an asset in a marriage dissolution for an abuse of discretion.
Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98, 102 (Ind. 1996). An abuse of discretion occurs
when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before it. Id. There is no abuse of discretion where sufficient
evidence and reasonable inferences support the trial court’s valuation. Bingley v.
Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152, 154 (Ind. 2010). Upon review of a trial court’s
valuation of property in a dissolution, we neither reweigh the evidence nor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1509-DR-1586 | May 12, 2016 Page 2 of 5
judge the credibility of witnesses. Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1056 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
[5] Here, Richard challenges the $53,657 value the trial court assigned to the
Signature Series Gold account. Richard contends that the value assigned to this
account by the trial court is improper because it is $23,000 more than the actual
account balance at the time of separation. During Richard’s direct
examination, there was no mention of this account. On cross-examination, he
was asked by Cynthia’s counsel if $53,657 sounded accurate as the balance for
the account. Richard responded that it “might” be the balance, that it seemed
high, and that he could not say for sure. Tr. p. 25. Cynthia’s counsel then
showed Richard two bank statements for the account dated July 23, 2014 and
September 23, 2014, which were later admitted into evidence without objection
by Richard. The July 23 statement shows an account balance of $53,657.14,
and the September 23 statement shows an account balance of $30,279.61.
Upon questioning by Cynthia’s counsel, Richard testified that prior to filing for
divorce, he withdrew $23,000 from the account. On re-direct, Richard stated
that he used the money to purchase a car for a third party female in August
2014. During her direct examination, Cynthia testified that Exhibit J was a
spreadsheet showing the marital assets, including bank accounts and their
balances. Exhibit J includes the Signature Series Gold account with a balance
of $53,657. Cynthia’s counsel moved to admit Exhibit J, and Richard
affirmatively stated he had no objection to the exhibit.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1509-DR-1586 | May 12, 2016 Page 3 of 5
[6] “The burden of proving the value of marital assets is, and should be, on the
parties to the dissolution.” Houchens v. Boschert, 758 N.E.2d 585, 588 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2001), trans. denied. There is no abuse of discretion where the trial court’s
valuation of a marital asset is within the range of values supported by the
evidence. Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d 532, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans.
denied. A valuation submitted by one of the parties is competent evidence of the
value of property in a dissolution action and may, alone, support the trial
court’s determination. Crider, 15 N.E.3d at 1056. Moreover, the doctrine of
invited error precludes a party from complaining on appeal about an error it
prompted. Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144, 1155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[7] In this case, Cynthia provided an unchallenged value for the Signature Series
Gold account. Although Richard offered his testimony on cross-examination
that he withdrew $23,000 and his admission on re-direct that he used the money
to buy a car for a third party female, he at no time made any effort to question
the value of the account as shown on Exhibit J and in fact acquiesced to Exhibit
J’s admission. Thus, any error in the value assigned to the Signature Series
Gold account was invited by Richard, and he cannot now be heard to complain
about any such error. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion in assigning the value of $53,657 to the
Signature Series Gold account.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1509-DR-1586 | May 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
[8] For the reasons stated, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
assigning the value of $53,657 to the parties’ bank account.
[9] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1509-DR-1586 | May 12, 2016 Page 5 of 5