MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Feb 27 2017, 9:16 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Alan D. Wilson Katherine J. Noel
Kokomo, Indiana Jacob D. Winkler
Noel Law
Kokomo, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Karen Criswell, February 27, 2017
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A05-1604-DR-924
v. Appeal from the Howard Superior
Court
Kenneth Criswell, The Honorable Brant J. Parry,
Appellee-Respondent. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34D02-1404-DR-293
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Karen Criswell (“Wife”) appeals the dissolution court’s decree of dissolution of
her marriage to Kenneth Criswell (“Husband”). Wife raises a single issue on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 4
appeal, and Husband raises a single issue on cross-appeal. We address those
issues as follows:
1. Whether the dissolution court erred when it found a 1962
Chevrolet Corvette (“the Corvette”) to be a marital asset.
2. Whether the court erred when it valued the Corvette at
$22,000.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On April 9, 2014, Wife filed her petition for the dissolution of her marriage to
Husband after nearly twenty-eight years of marriage. On January 13, 2016, the
dissolution court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. At that hearing,
Wife testified that the Corvette was a marital asset that she believed to be worth
$40,000. Wife did not specify a basis for her belief that the value was an
accurate value.
[4] Husband also testified at the hearing. According to Husband, he had traded the
Corvette to a friend, to whom Husband owed $22,000, in exchange for having
that debt forgiven. Despite trading the vehicle, however, Husband
acknowledged that he kept possession of it, continued to pay insurance on it,
and took it, along with Wife, to car shows.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 4
[5] After the hearing, the court entered its dissolution decree. Among other things,
the court found the Corvette to be a marital asset worth $22,000. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[6] Husband argues on appeal that the dissolution court erred when it found the
Corvette to be a marital asset, and Wife contends that the court erred when it
valued the Corvette at $22,000. The parties’ arguments follow the court’s
decree of dissolution, in which the court entered findings of fact and
conclusions thereon after an evidentiary hearing. In such appeals, “the court on
appeal shall not set aside the findings or judgment unless clearly erroneous, and
due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the
credibility of the witnesses.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A). In reviewing findings of
fact and conclusions thereon, an appellate court applies “a two-tiered standard
of review by first determining whether the evidence supports the findings and
then whether the findings support the judgment.” Weigel v. Weigel, 24 N.E.3d
1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In evaluating whether the findings support the
judgment, we will reverse “only upon a showing of ‘clear error’—that which
leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Egly v. Blackford Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 592 N.E.2d 1232, 1235 (Ind. 1992).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 4
Issue One: Whether the Corvette is a Marital Asset
[7] We first address Husband’s argument on cross-appeal that the dissolution court
erred when it found the Corvette to be a marital asset. We hold that the
dissolution court’s finding on this issue is supported by the evidence. The
undisputed evidence shows that Husband and Wife had possession of the
Corvette, paid insurance on it, and took it to car shows. That evidence is
sufficient to support the dissolution court’s finding that the Corvette was a
marital asset, and Husband’s argument to the contrary on appeal simply
requests this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
Issue Two: The Value of the Corvette
[8] We thus turn to Wife’s issue on appeal, namely, whether the dissolution court
erred when it valued the Corvette at $22,000 rather than $40,000. We again
hold that the dissolution court’s finding is supported by the evidence. Although
Wife testified that she believed the Corvette to have been worth $40,000,
Husband testified that he thought the Corvette had a fair market value of
$22,000. Accordingly, the dissolution court’s finding that the Corvette had a
value of $22,000 is supported by the evidence, and Wife’s argument on appeal,
like Husband’s argument on cross-appeal, seeks to have this court reweigh the
evidence. We will not. We affirm the judgment of the dissolution court.
[9] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1604-DR-924 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 4