FILED
Jan 31 2019, 6:04 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James E. Ayers Ralph E. Dowling
Wernle, Ristine & Ayers Dowling Law Office
Crawfordsville, Indiana Muncie, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dorothy Campbell, January 31, 2019
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-DR-361
v. Appeal from the Boone Circuit
Court
Mark Reed Campbell, The Honorable J. Jeffrey Edens,
Appellee Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
06C01-1609-DR-587
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 1 of 11
[1] Dorothy Campbell appeals the trial court’s order dissolving her marriage to
Mark Campbell. Dorothy argues that the trial court erroneously denied her
request for spousal maintenance and erroneously valued one of the parties’
assets. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Dorothy and Mark were married in 1991; no children were born of the
marriage. Both parties worked until Dorothy became disabled in 1996.
Dorothy has not worked since that time. Mark provided the sole financial
support for the couple until Dorothy began receiving Social Security Disability
(SSD) payments in 2001.1 Dorothy’s SSD arrearage payment was used to buy
furnishings, electronics, and appliances for the house they built in 2001. Mark
has continued to work and earned $23.01 per hour at the time of the hearing.
[3] In the spring of 2016, the parties separated, sold the marital residence, and paid
off marital debts. Dorothy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in May
2016, requesting spousal maintenance due to her disability and an equitable
division of the marital property. The trial court held a hearing on August 25,
2017, and issued its dissolution decree on November 9, 2017. In the decree,
the trial court denied Dorothy’s request for spousal maintenance; valued the
parties’ Buick Enclave at $21,143.00; and divided the marital estate equally,
1
In 2001, the Social Security Administration determined that Dorothy became disabled on May 1, 1997, and
offered benefits dating back to December 1998 based on when Dorothy filed for disability.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 2 of 11
requiring an equalization payment from Mark to Dorothy. Dorothy filed a
motion to correct error regarding spousal maintenance and the valuation of the
Buick Enclave; the trial court denied the motion. Dorothy now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Spousal Maintenance
[4] Dorothy first argues that the trial court erred by denying her request for spousal
maintenance. The trial court may award spousal maintenance upon finding
that a spouse is incapacitated and her ability to support herself is materially
affected. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-2(1). Findings are required by statute to support
an award of incapacity maintenance, see I.C. § 31-15-7-1, but there is no
corresponding requirement that findings be entered when incapacity
maintenance is denied. Thus, the trial court’s findings here are “special
findings.” Ind. Trial Rule 52(A)(3); Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524, 526
(Ind. 2001) (determining, in reviewing findings from which trial court
concluded wife was not entitled to incapacity maintenance, that findings
supporting denial would be treated as special findings). We will not set aside
special findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Alexander v. Alexander, 980
N.E.2d 878, 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). The weight of the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses are matters for the trial court to assess. Id.
[5] There are two ways in which a party to a divorce may be obligated to make
spousal maintenance payments: either the parties agree to maintenance in a
negotiated settlement agreement or the court may order maintenance payments
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 3 of 11
in limited circumstances. Palmby v. Palmby, 10 N.E.3d 580, 583 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014). One of these circumstances occurs when the trial court finds “a spouse
to be physically or mentally incapacitated to the extent that the ability of the
incapacitated spouse to support himself or herself is materially affected[.]” I.C.
§ 31-15-7-2(1). If the trial court makes that finding, it may order maintenance.
Id. Because such an award is designed to help provide for the incapacitated
spouse’s sustenance and support, the essential inquiry is whether the spouse can
support herself. Alexander, 980 N.E.2d at 881. An award of incapacity
maintenance is within the trial court’s discretion. Barton v. Barton, 47 N.E.3d
368, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[6] It is undisputed that Dorothy was seventy-three years old at the time of the
hearing and has an eighth-grade education. Moreover, while the parties may
not agree upon her precise diagnoses, there is no real dispute that she has had
years of serious medical problems and has been considered to be disabled and
entitled to SSD since 1997.
[7] The trial court made the following findings regarding Dorothy’s request for
incapacity maintenance:
Social Security Benefits
15. On May 1, 1997 [Dorothy] was determined to be disabled
by the Social Security Administration.
16. The nature of [Dorothy’s] disability was not indicated in
the award certificate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 4 of 11
17. [Dorothy] did not provide the Court with evidence as to
whether or not her disability status was periodically
reviewed and continued.
18. [Dorothy] continues to receive Social Security benefits.
19. The Court is unsure if those are disability benefits or
retirement benefits.[2]
Wife’s Age
20. By her own admissions, based on her age, [Dorothy]
would not likely be currently working regardless of her
health conditions.
***
Wife’s Testimony
30. [Dorothy] presented extensive testimony and exhibits
concerning her disabilities.
31. [Dorothy] also presented testimony concerning the
limitations she has as a result of her disabilities.
Lack of Supporting Vocational Evidence
32. However, [Dorothy] did not provide the Court with any
vocational evidence as to whether or not the limitations
2
We can only conclude that this finding is clearly erroneous, as there is no evidence in the record that
Dorothy’s benefits were anything other than disability benefits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 5 of 11
from her disability prevent her from performing all types of
employment, including sedentary employment.
33. Based on the evidence before it, the Court does not find
that [Dorothy] is physically or mentally incapacitated to
the extent that [] her ability to support herself is materially
affected.
Appealed Order p. 3-5 (internal citations omitted).
[8] The trial court found that Dorothy was not incapacitated to the extent that her
ability to support herself is materially affected. She argues that this conclusion
is clearly erroneous based on the evidence in the record. Even if we were to
agree with her position for argument’s sake—in other words, even if the trial
court should have found that Dorothy was incapacitated—the award of
maintenance was still within the trial court’s discretion. The statute does not
enumerate factors that must be considered or facts that must be weighed as the
trial court exercises its discretion on this matter. Here, the trial court
considered the evidence before it and made a careful judgment that
maintenance is not warranted in this case. Although it could likewise have
reached the opposite result on these facts, we see no reason to conclude that the
trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the maintenance request.
[9] There will come a time in the lives of most of us when we are unable to work,
whether because of age or disability. To reverse in this case would imply that if
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 6 of 11
one of the divorcing parties is elderly and receiving SSD,3 maintenance is
always required. We decline to reach such a result. Cases like this are
extremely fact-sensitive and filled with nuance that our trial courts are best able
to sift through. We believe it wise of our legislature to vest our trial courts with
discretion in such matters and will not step into the trial court’s exercise of
discretion here. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny
Dorothy’s request for spousal maintenance.4
II. Property Valuation
[10] The trial court has broad discretion in ascertaining the value of property in a
dissolution action, and its valuation will only be disturbed where the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial
court. Trabucco v. Trabucco, 944 N.E.2d 544, 557-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). If the
trial court’s chosen valuation is within the range of values supported by the
evidence, we will affirm. Goossens v. Goossens, 829 N.E.2d 36, 38 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005).
[11] Dorothy testified that they bought the 2012 Buick Enclave for approximately
$33,000 in late 2012. It was a used car, previously owned by Enterprise, and it
3
Dorothy argues that being eligible for SSD should be prima facie evidence of incapacity. Whether or not it
should be is irrelevant. The simple fact is that nothing in the statute or caselaw indicates that it is, in fact,
prima facie evidence of incapacity.
4
Dorothy argues that the denial of maintenance based partially on her age violates her constitutional right to
equal protection and treatment. But she failed to raise it below, cites to no authority in support, and includes
no cogent constitutional analysis in making this argument. Therefore, we decline to address it.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 7 of 11
had hail damage when they bought it. Dorothy posited that it was worth
$14,000 at the time of separation but was “probably more like ten now” because
she did not have a garage and it had to be parked outside. Tr. Vol. II p. 59.
Dorothy arrived at her $14,000 figure by “look[ing] at the Kelley Blue Book and
. . . at sales on ‘em and just various places[,]” but she did not remember exactly
the Kelley Blue Book value and she did not submit any documentation supporting
her valuation of the vehicle. Id. at 87. Mark submitted a Kelley Blue Book report
on the Enclave estimating the trade-in value at $21,143. Tr. Ex. Vol. VI p. 190.
[12] The trial court was within the bounds of the evidence presented by valuing the
Enclave at $21,000 for purposes of dividing the marital estate. Mark provided
evidence of the Enclave’s value via the Kelley Blue Book report whereas Dorothy
provided only a guess. See Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130, 1138 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting wife’s
valuation of property when husband testified he had not had the property
appraised and his valuation was “a complete guess”). The valuation was within
the scope of the evidence before the trial court, and we decline to reverse on this
issue.
[13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., concurs.
Robb, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with a separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 8 of 11
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dorothy Campbell, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-DR-361
Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
Mark Reed Campbell,
Appellee-Respondent,
Robb, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[14] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s resolution with respect to spousal
maintenance.5 I agree with the majority that an award of spousal maintenance
is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, see slip op. at ¶ 5, and that even if a
trial court were to find a spouse incapacitated, it is not required by the statute to
award maintenance, see id. at ¶ 8; but see Cannon, 758 N.E.2d at 527 (noting that
although the statutory language makes a maintenance award discretionary, “the
5
I concur with respect to the property valuation issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 9 of 11
trial court should normally award incapacity maintenance” if it finds a spouse is
mentally or physically incapacitated). I also agree that an SSD award does not
necessarily equate to incapacity in every situation. See id. at ¶ 9 n.3.
[15] Despite my agreement with these general principles of law, I am unable to
agree with the majority that on these facts, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. The trial court stated it was unsure if Dorothy’s benefits were for
disability or retirement, mentioned Dorothy’s age as the reason for her not
working, and implied that Dorothy was required to present evidence other than
her own testimony that she was unable to work due to her disability. These
findings suggest to me that the trial court did not apply the appropriate standard
in determining whether Dorothy should be awarded spousal maintenance.
[16] As the majority notes, Dorothy’s benefits were clearly for disability and no one
suggested otherwise. Although receiving such benefits does not automatically
entitle her to spousal maintenance, that she has been deemed eligible for such
benefits should be a consideration in the trial court’s determination. Her
inability to work is not a function of her age, it is a function of her disability,
which caused her to cease working in 1996. For the ensuing nearly twenty
years, Mark has benefited from her SSD payments and provided for any
financial shortfall. She has no safety net now. And finally, in Paxton v. Paxton,
420 N.E.2d 1346, 1348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), we held that medical testimony
was not required to support an award of incapacity maintenance based on the
wife’s testimony that she was receiving Social Security disability benefits due to
her rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension and that she was unable to hold a job
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 10 of 11
due to her disability. Dorothy testified extensively about the nature and extent
of her disability and how it affects her life and ability to work at even a
sedentary job. See Tr. Vol. II at 47 (Dorothy testifying that she is unable to use
a computer for more than fifteen or twenty minutes at a time because it bothers
her hands and shoulders and sitting is difficult due to her arthritis). Testimony
and evidence indicating Dorothy’s expenses exceed her SSD benefits – which
now comprise her sole income – was uncontradicted and her expenses were not
challenged as unreasonable.
[17] To the extent the trial court’s findings indicate it may have failed to consider
that Dorothy receives SSD benefits, determined her disability did not materially
affect her ability to support herself because her age would have impacted her
earning ability regardless, and required additional evidence Dorothy was not
required to offer to support her request, I believe the trial court abused its
discretion. I would remand for the trial court to reconsider Dorothy’s request
for spousal maintenance in light of the correct standard.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-DR-361 | January 31, 2019 Page 11 of 11
Dorothy Campbell v. Mark Reed Campbell
Combined Opinion