(in a dissolution action, the court reversed a trial court’s property division order and remanded; trial court had originally awarded the marital residence to wife, with an unspecified 50 percent of the equity to be paid to husband; however, in a later nunc pro tunc order, the trial court stated that there was no equity in the marital residence because the wife contributed significantly more premarital funds toward the purchase than the husband; in reversing, the court could “not say for certain” that trial court properly considered evidence as to each statutory factor set forth in Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5, so to allow for an unequal division of property; trial court did not even acknowledge that this was an unequal division of property or provide a rational basis as to why deviating from the statutorily presumed equal division would be “just and reasonable”; such explanation was required by Indiana law).
CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.