Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4

Section 31-15-7-4 includes property acquired through either spouse’s individual efforts in the marital estate.

Hitchcox v. Hitchcox · filed 1998-04-09

According to the legislature, marital property includes all property of the parties, whether acquired by joint or individual efforts. I.C. 31-15-7-4, formerly I.C. 31 — 1— 11.5-U(b).

Section 31-15-7-4 excludes property transferred before the dissolution petition is filed from the marital estate subject to division.

Pitman v. Pitman · filed 1999-12-15

Under Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4, a marital estate subject to division includes property acquired by either spouse “prior to final separation of the parties.” Final separation refers to the date of filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage.

Property a spouse receives from a parent is included in the marital estate.

Bizik v. Bizik · filed 2001-08-17(a)

Therefore, we agree with the trial court that even if it is true that Dan received the $28,000.00 from his mother, that money is still included in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires marital property to be considered for division regardless of when or how it was acquired or whose name holds title.

Beard v. Beard · filed 2001-11-30(a)

See Ind.Code §§ 31-15-7-4(a) (providing that the trial court shall divide the marital property at dissolution, regardless of time or method of acquisition) and 31-9-2-98 (defining "property" for purposes of dissolution as "all the assets of either party or both parties"). The trial court did not "void" any transfer; rather, it considered all items of marital property, regardless of title, together in the marital pot pursuant to Indiana Code sections 81-15-7-4(a) and 31-9-2-98.

Section 31-15-7-4 includes all property in the marital estate, including property acquired before marriage or by inheritance.

Fobar v. Vonderahe · filed 2002-07-01

But Indiana statute requires all property to be considered in the marital estate. I.C. § 31-15-7-4.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a court to include property owned before marriage or acquired individually or jointly when considering the marital estate for division.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2004-07-15(a)

Indiana law provides that, when dividing property in a dissolution proceeding, the court shall include property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right, or acquired by the joint efforts of the spouses. Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) generally includes property acquired before or during marriage in the marital estate, including the full value of a spouse's pension.

In Re the Marriage of Nickels · filed 2005-09-30(a)

All property, whether acquired before or during the marriage, is generally included in the marital estate for property division. See Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(a); Bertholet v. Bertholet, 725 N.E.2d 487, 495 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). ... Under these facts and cireumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the entire value of Wife's pension in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the marital estate to include all property owned by either spouse, including property owned before marriage.

Perkins v. Harding · filed 2005-10-28(a)

Because the marital estate includes all the property, "whether owned by either spouse prior to marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her right after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts," Neffle v. Neffle, 483 N.E.2d 767, 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (citing Ind.Code § 31-1-11.5-11, now Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(a)), reh'g denied, trans. denied, the court's order dividing the marital estate should list all marital property. The court did not err when it listed the equity in the house and the buses as assets assigned to Perkins.

Property a spouse possesses before the dissolution petition is filed belongs to the marital estate even if deposited afterward.

Deckard v. Deckard · filed 2006-01-24

All property owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and 'before the final separation of the parties, or acquired by the joint effort of the parties is included within the marital estate. Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4. ... Inasmuch as Husband wrote this check to himself and had it in his possession before Wife filed the petition for dissolution, we find that it is of no moment that Husband waited until after Wife filed the petition to deposit the check.

The marital estate includes property either spouse owned before marriage, acquired individually before final separation, or acquired through joint efforts, and the court must include those assets when considering how to divide the estate.

Hartley v. Hartley · filed 2007-03-05

In determining the value of the marital estate, the trial court is required to include property owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4. ... The trial court included all these assets in its calculation of the value of the marital estate.

All marital property must be included in the marital estate for division, including property owned before marriage or purchased with funds one spouse brought into the marriage.

Hill v. Hill · filed 2007-04-02(a)

We reiterate that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, even if it was owned by one spouse prior to the marriage or purchased with funds that one spouse brought into the marriage. See I.C. § 31-15-7-4(a); Beard, 758 N.E.2d at 1025; see also Thompson, 811 N.E.2d at 914. These properties were properly included in the marital pot.

When a court orders the marital residence sold, Section 31-15-7-4 permits its value to be reduced by necessary repair and sale costs supported by evidence.

Keown v. Keown · filed 2008-04-04

We hold that because a party was ordered to sell the marital residence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the value of the property by the cost of necessary repairs and the costs of sale as long as those amounts are based on evidence in the record.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the court to include all marital property in the estate for division, including property owned before marriage or purchased with funds a spouse brought into the marriage.

O'Connell v. O'Connell · filed 2008-06-18(a)

We reiterate that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by one spouse before the marriage or purchased with funds that one spouse brought into the marriage.

Marital property may be divided unequally when the evidence supports a just and reasonable distribution.

Gaskell v. Gaskell · filed 2009-01-23

He is correct in pointing out that Indiana statutory law and caselaw presumes an equal division. See Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4; see also Cowden v. Cowden, 661 N.E.2d 894, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (an equal division of marital property is presumed just and reasonable). ... Husband has failed to overcome our presumption that the trial court considered the proper factors and evidence, and we decline his invitation to reweigh the evidence or substitute our discretion for that of the trial court.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires marital assets to be included in the estate for division, including funds set aside for a child’s college expenses by a provisional order.

Trabucco v. Trabucco · filed 2011-03-28(a)

And because the account was funded with marital assets, the policies behind Indiana’s one-pot theory require its inclusion within the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires property owned by either spouse to be considered in the marital estate, including property owned before marriage.

Estudillo v. Estudillo · filed 2011-10-18(a)

It is well established that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property acquired before final separation in the marital estate, but money spent on marital debts before dissolution is not an asset to divide.

Kohl v. Kohl · filed 2012-01-31(a)

Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4(a) provides that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was (1) owned by either spouse before the marriage; (2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before the final separation of the parties; or (3) acquired by their joint efforts. ... Based on the absence of evidence that the $3000 existed at the time Husband filed the dissolution petition, we conclude that the trial court improperly included it as an asset in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a)(3) includes jointly acquired property in the marital estate even when it is titled in only one spouse’s name.

St. Pierre v. St. Pierre · filed 2012-02-29(a)(3)

Again, any asset acquired jointly by the parties is a marital asset. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a)(3). And all such assets, whether titled jointly or individually, are to be included in the marital pot subject to division in dissolution proceedings.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires courts to include all marital property in the estate and divide it in a just and reasonable manner.

In Re: The Marriage of Lisa Mae Slayback Gillispie v. Gillispie · filed 2012-03-22

Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 governs the division of property in dissolution actions and requires that the trial court “divide the property in a just and reasonable manner.” ... It is well-established that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires property owned by a spouse before the marriage to be included in the marital estate before the court divides it.

Lane v. Connie S. Lane · filed 2012-03-23(a)

Pursuant to this section, the assets which Husband mentions clearly must be included in the marital estate, and Husband fails to set forth a cogent argument or legal authorities in support of his claim that the trial court should have “set [them] aside to him” – and not included them in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property, including property owned before marriage or acquired before final separation.

In Re: The Marriage of John Davis v. Davis · filed 2012-07-25

The trial court must divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner, including property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4 includes property owned before marriage in the marital estate, requiring courts to consider the full value of premarital assets when dividing it.

Swadner v. Swadner · filed 2008-12-12

In its division of the marital property, the trial court should have, but failed to, consider the total equity in the marital residence and the full amount of Father’s 401 (k). See I.C. § 31-15-7-4.

Property inherited by a spouse during the marriage and before final separation is part of the marital estate.

In Re: The Marriage of Brenda S. Sanders and Paul R. Sanders, Paul R. Sanders v. Sanders · filed 2012-04-23(a)

The trial court found Husband inherited the farm property from his father in 2000, which was after the parties were married, and before their separation. Therefore, the farm is part of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires debts incurred before marriage to be included in the marital estate when property is divided.

In re the Marriage of: Dennis Coffman v. Coffman · filed 2012-08-07(a)

We agree that, as in Capeheart, the trial court erred when it excluded the debts incurred prior to the marriage from the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) permits a life insurance policy with cash value to be included in the marital estate for division.

Hawkins v. Hawkins · filed 2012-11-01(a)

First, it was entirely proper to include Husband’s life insurance as a marital asset. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a) (stating that in a dissolution of marriage action, the court shall divide the property of the parties, whether it was owned by either of them before the marriage, acquired by either of them in his or her own right during the marriage, or acquired by their joint efforts).

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires property owned before marriage and property acquired during marriage to be included in the marital estate for division.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2013-01-29(a)

All marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). ... Thus, Wife’s student loan debt could have been considered marital debt by the trial court.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires marital property to be included in the estate for division, even if the court ultimately awards an asset to one spouse.

Harold M. Bacchus, Jr. v. Deen-Bacchus · filed 2013-04-16(a)

It is well-established in Indiana that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a) (1997); Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144, 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The determinative date when identifying marital property subject to division is the date the dissolution petition was filed. Webb, 891 N.E.2d at 1149. While the trial court may ultimately determine that a particular asset should be awarded solely to one spouse, it must first include the asset in its consideration of the marital estate to be divided. Id.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires all marital property, including inherited assets, to be included in the division of the marital estate.

Kiely v. Starnes-Kiely · filed 2013-05-13(a)

It is well established that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. ... We remand this case to the trial court with instructions to clarify what portion of the marital estate each party is to receive and adopt a modified spreadsheet setting forth the distribution.

A health savings account received as a retirement benefit is included in the marital estate.

In Re the Marriage of Scott Roll and Carol Roll, Carol Roll v. Roll · filed 2013-11-26(a)

Wife’s health savings account was a marital asset similar to a future pension payment, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it included it as part of the marital property.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property subject to a land contract in the marital estate when a spouse retains legal title, even if payments are due in the future.

Schoolman v. Schoolman · filed 2013-12-12(a)

It is well established that all marital property goes into the marital estate for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a); Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Consequently, the trial court properly held that the property subject to the land contract was part of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the court to include all marital property in the estate subject to division.

Polk-King v. King · filed 2014-01-27(a)

It is well-established that all property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property owned before marriage, acquired before final separation, or acquired through the spouses’ joint efforts in the marital estate for division.

In Re: The Marriage of Terri L. Potter and Brent D. Potter: Terri L. Potter v. Potter · filed 2014-01-27(a)

All marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property, including property acquired before the marriage or by either spouse before final separation.

In re the Marriage of: Tasha Bates v. Bates · filed 2014-03-31

The trial court must divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner, including property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. ... Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that he trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that an unequal division of the marital estate was just and reasonable.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) places property owned before marriage, acquired before final separation, or acquired through the spouses’ joint efforts in the marital estate for division.

Clarenda Love v. Love · filed 2014-04-30(a)

It is well-established that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

A spouse’s vested remainder interest held in joint tenancy must be included in the marital estate when it has present pecuniary value and can be valued.

Falatovics v. Falatovics · filed 2014-08-14(a)

Husband’s remainder interest in Parcels 1 and 2, which he holds as a joint tenant, has a present pecuniary interest. His interest in the parcels is an asset capable of valuation. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding Husband’s interest in Parcels 1 and 2 from the marital pot and reverse that portion of the decree.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property owned before marriage, acquired during marriage before final separation, or acquired through the spouses’ joint efforts in the marital estate.

Amanda Kay (Albin) Brasseur v. Brasseur · filed 2014-08-25(a)

The marital estate is presumed to include all property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, and all property acquired as a result of the parties’ joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). ... But given the absence of other documentation or findings of the parties’ joint and separate liabilities, we cannot conclude that a full accounting of the total value of the marital property was made.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the marital pot to include the parties’ property, including property owned before marriage and property acquired before final separation.

Smart v. Kristina L. Smart · filed 2014-09-23(a)

Here, the trial court’s judgment deviates from the statutory requirement that all assets and liabilities of the parties acquired before filing must be included in the marital pot. The full value of the home, Wife’s savings account containing her tuition reimbursement, Husband’s 1923 Ford, and the Kiss tickets must be included in the marital pot.

A bonus is excluded from the marital estate if the spouse had no vested interest in it at final separation.

Rose A. Martiradonna f/k/a Rose A. Rynberk v. Gilbert W. Rynberk (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-10(a)

At the date of final separation, Husband did not have a vested interest in the Deal Bonus, and in fact the Deal Bonus was not even part of Husband’s employment agreement with the Bank. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that the Deal Bonus was not a marital asset.

Savings bonds purchased as gifts for family members and held until they are given may be excluded from the marital estate.

Elias v. Janet R. Elias (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-13(a)

The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion to include in the marital assets only the twenty-four savings bonds owned exclusively by the parties. The trial court clearly believed that the remaining bonds had been purchased for family members as a gift, were being held by the parties until the bonds increased in value, and would be given to those family members to mark a special occasion. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded from the marital pot savings bonds that had been purchased as gifts for the parties’ family members.

All marital property must be considered for division, including an investment account intended partly for a child’s college expenses when the spouse could also use the funds.

Reeve v. Paula B. Reeve (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-14

In Indiana, all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to the parties’ final separation, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 (1997). ... This is sufficient evidence from which the trial court could reasonably conclude that the funds were not set aside exclusively for Brian’s daughter’s college expenses but were instead marital assets.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property acquired by one spouse alone during the marriage and before final separation in the property the court must divide.

In Re the Marriage of John Lane v. Leisa Lane (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-24(a)

By statute, the court shall divide the property of the parties, whether the property was owned by either spouse before the marriage, was acquired solely by one or the other spouse in his or her own right between the date of the marriage and the final separation date, or was acquired through the joint efforts of the parties.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the court to include property owned before marriage in the marital estate, including value added to a home before the marriage.

Carie v. Jennifer Carie, f/k/a Jennifer Wade, n/k/a Jennifer Andrews (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-08-11(a)

The trial court is required by statute to divide the property of the parties whether owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before the final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a) (1997). ... The new roof increased the value of the marital residence. To the extent the trial court included that value in its determination, we find no abuse of discretion.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of marital property; a court may value a business interest using the credible evidence presented for that division.

Rink v. Emily Rink (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-10-26(b)

“The court shall divide the property in a just and reasonable manner,” and may order distribution of those assets in any number of ways. I.C. § 31-15-7-4(b). ... We accordingly find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s valuation of Husband’s interest in JJ Pharma, and we leave undisturbed the trial court’s decision regarding the distribution of marital assets.

All marital property is available for division, including property owned before marriage and property acquired before final separation.

Dant v. Anthony J. Dant (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-10-30(a)

All marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property acquired through the spouses’ joint efforts in the marital estate, including a joint tax refund.

Boring v. Lisa K. Boring (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-02-04(a)

All marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. I.C. § 31-15-7-4(a); Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). ... Here, the refund was produced by joint efforts. Both Husband and Wife earned money and paid taxes; each was liable upon signing the return. As Husband testified, they received a larger return because of the decision to file jointly. We find the reasoning of Nill to be sound, and we conclude that Husband has shown no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to divide the tax return equally.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires property owned before marriage to be included in the marital estate when dividing property in a dissolution.

Ahls v. Ahls · filed 2016-03-11(a)

In dissolution actions, we follow the “one pot” theory, meaning that all marital property is included in the marital pot for division, regardless of whether it was owned by one spouse before marriage, acquired by one spouse after the marriage and before final separation, or acquired through the joint efforts of both.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes a spouse’s inherited property in the marital property to be divided.

Winslow v. Fred Winslow (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-09-29(a)

Consistent with Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a),1 the court included Husband’s one-third interest in the sixty-eight acres of farmland in the marital property to be divided, and it was presented with differing values for the property at the date of separation, namely, a value based on the assessment of the Cass County Assessor and a value based on a calculation using the per acre values in a table ... in the Purdue Report.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires courts to include property acquired by either spouse during the marriage in the marital estate before dividing it.

Vudumu v. Namratha Meesala (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-10-28(a)

In determining the value of the marital estate, the trial court is required to include property owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 (1997). ... Therefore, the gift and the value of the apartment should have been included in the marital estate and considered by the court when it determined the division of the property.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires courts to include premarital assets in the marital estate when dividing property.

In Re the Marriage of Lisa L. Shisler and Ned L. Shisler Ned L. Shisler v. Shisler · filed 2012-12-07(a)

By excluding premarital assets while also purporting to divide the marital estate equally, the court committed reversible error.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires division of marital property, including property either spouse owned before marriage or acquired before final separation.

Walls v. Walls · filed 2012-12-11

As discussed above, Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4 compels the trial court to divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner, including property owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.

A property division under section 31-15-7-4 does not require a signed statement of satisfaction.

In Re the Marriage of: Michelle Schlotterback and Terry Schlotterback, Terry Schlotterback v. Schlotterback · filed 2014-05-30

Trial Rule 67(B) required Michelle to sign a statement of total satisfaction for the equalization judgment, but there is no such requirement for the property division. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires the marital estate to include property acquired by either spouse before marriage or before final separation, including inherited property.

In Re: The Marriage of Kenneth G. Haynie, Jr. v. Haynie · filed 2013-05-30

In determining the value of the marital estate, the dissolution court is required to include property owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. ... Here, the dissolution court included the inherited assets in the marital pot and considered that property potentially subject to division, but decided to award the full value of those assets to Wife.

Section 31-15-7-4 includes inherited property in the marital estate subject to division.

Klimeck v. Virginia Klimeck (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-08-11

Consequently, the trial court properly included the German accounts as part of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 makes marital property subject to division even if one spouse owned it before the marriage.

Quintero v. Quintero · filed 2013-07-03

However, it is well established that all marital property is subject to equal division, regardless of whether it was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage or accumulated by their joint efforts.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires a court to include property acquired before marriage in the marital estate before deciding how to divide it.

Kendrick v. Kendrick · filed 2015-09-22(a)

While the court may ultimately determine that the portion of Husband’s pension earned prior to the marriage should be awarded solely to him, it must first include the asset in its consideration as to how the marital estate should be divided. Accordingly, the court erred in failing to include all property, including that portion of Husband’s pension earned before the marriage, in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires the court to place all non-excluded marital assets into one pot for division.

Morey v. Morey · filed 2016-01-20

Next, the trial court must gather all the non-excluded marital assets and place them into one pot subject to division under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the court to include all marital property, including an inheritance, in the marital estate before dividing it.

David John Macintosh, Jr. v. Pamela Jo Macintosh (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-11-18(a)

It is well-established in Indiana that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and prior to final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a) (2016); Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456, 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). ... Because the law requires that Wife’s inheritance be included in the marital estate, Hill, 863 N.E.2d at 460, we reverse and remand with instructions to the dissolution court to include Wife’s inheritance in the marital pot.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the marital estate to include property owned by either spouse before final separation, including property acquired before marriage.

Gillespie v. Anita Gillespie (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-08-24(a)

As set forth above, however, the trial court is statutorily required to include in the marital pot all property owned by either spouse prior to the date of final separation, even if that property was acquired prior to the ... marriage.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property owned before marriage, acquired during marriage, or acquired through joint efforts in the marital property available for division.

Farrell v. Elva Farrell (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-02-15(a)

It is well-established that all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts. Id. at 1013; Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). This one-pot theory ensures that no asset is excluded from the trial court’s power to divide and award.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes gambling winnings acquired during the marriage and before final separation in the marital estate.

Goodman v. Goodman · filed 2018-03-06(a)

As these amounts were “acquired after the marriage and before the final separation of the parties,” they are part of the marital estate. I.C. § 31-15-7-4(a).

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes property acquired by either spouse before marriage or before final separation in the marital estate for division.

Rittenhouse v. Rosetta D. Rittenhouse (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-04-04(a)

Indiana’s legislature adopted the “one-pot” theory of marital property, which defines all the assets produced before or during the marriage, by one or both of ... the parties, as marital property.

Property acquired by either spouse before or during the marriage must be included in the marital estate for division.

Bulmer v. Pamela K. Bulmer (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-08-07(a)

“It is well settled that in a dissolution action, all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, whether it was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts.” Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied; see also Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a).

Section 31-15-7-4(a) generally includes property acquired before or during the marriage in the marital estate for division.

Maxwell v. Shirley Sue Maxwell (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-08-10(a)

All property, whether acquired before or during the marriage, is generally included in the marital estate for property division. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a).

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a court to include property acquired before marriage in the marital estate before dividing it.

Gish v. Gish · filed 2018-09-28

Here, however, the trial court “set over” the Hilliard Lyons account to Husband and improperly failed to include its value in the marital pot.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires all marital property to be included in the marital pot before division, even if a portion is ultimately awarded to one spouse.

Eads v. Robert J. Eads, Jr. · filed 2018-11-16(a)

It is well settled that in a dissolution action, all marital property, whether owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts, goes into the marital pot for division. ... In any event, the trial court included Husband’s “pension rights” “in the marital pot.” ... The court explained, however, that it was setting aside a portion of the pension to Husband because it was earned before the parties’ marriage; the court then equally divided the rest of the pension. Id. (Finding 46). This satisfies Indiana law.

Section 31-15-7-4 treats student loans incurred before the marital pot closes as marital property subject to division.

Turner v. Darla Jo Turner (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-11-29

Thus, student loans—just like other debts incurred before the marital pot closes—are marital property subject to division.

Section 31-15-7-4 places all property owned by the spouses in the marital pot, where it is subject to division.

Garland v. Sharon L. Garland (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-01(a)

Under Indiana’s “one pot” approach to the division of marital property, all property owned by the spouses is put into the “marital pot,” where the property is subject to division.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes a payment in the marital estate when the right to use it had vested before the dissolution petition was filed.

Carter v. Jennifer Carter (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-18(a)

Because DBConnect’s interest in the entire $150,000 payment had vested, the trial court properly included the entire $150,000 payment in the marital pot.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires the marital estate to include student loan debt even when part of it was incurred before marriage.

Dobson v. Bethany L. Dobson (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-04-18(a)

Although partially acquired before the marriage, the trial court properly included all of Wife’s student loan debt in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires marital property to be included in the marital pot for division, including property a spouse owned before marriage or acquired before final separation.

Wesolek v. Dana Wesolek (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-08-29(a)

It is well settled that in a dissolution action, all marital property, whether owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts, goes into the marital pot for division. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a); Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). ... Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the Arbor stock in the marital pot.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) includes debts incurred during marriage in the marital estate for division.

Challoner v. Wendy Challoner (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-09-12(a)

Again, in Indiana, all marital property goes into the marital pot for division, even if it was purchased with funds that one spouse brought into the marriage. See I.C. § 31-15-7-4(a). ... In the present case, there is no dispute that the Verizon bill is marital property since it was an expense incurred during the parties’ marriage and was subject to the presumption of an equal division.

Property purchased during the marriage remains in the marital estate despite transfers between a spouse and real estate companies when it has not been disposed of by the filing of the dissolution petition.

Nevarez v. Maria Verduzco (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-10-23(a)

Furthermore, the fact that the house was transferred multiple times between Husband and certain real estate holding companies, one of which Husband owned, is of no moment and does not warrant the exclusion of the house as a marital asset because the house was initially purchased during the marriage and had yet to be disposed of at the time Wife filed her dissolution petition.

Equity in a marital residence must be considered as part of the marital estate even when it was gifted to one spouse.

Dean v. Denise Darlene Dean (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-10-25(a)

There is no question that the equity constitutes a marital asset to be considered in the marital estate. However, because the trial court found that the equity was a gift intended solely for Wife, the trial court was within its discretion to exclude the amount from division and set it aside solely for Wife.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires all marital property acquired before final separation, including property owned before marriage, to be included in the marital estate for division.

Raul Hernandez-Velazquez, and Modesto Hernandez and Elizabeth Barcaleta v. Hernandez · filed 2019-11-14(a)

It is well settled that in a dissolution action, all marital property, whether owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts, goes into the marital pot for division. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a); Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108, 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires the trial court to divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2019-11-22(b)

In dissolution proceedings, the trial court is required to divide the property of the parties “in a just and reasonable manner[.]” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b).

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires assets acquired during marriage, including shares gifted to one spouse, to be included in the marital estate before division.

Baglan v. Baglan · filed 2019-11-27(a)

As to the shares and the vehicles, the values of which were largely disputed by the parties, it is apparent from the portions of the trial court’s Order highlighted above that the trial court specifically excluded those assets from the marital pot, which was an abuse of its discretion.

A spouse’s vested interest as a contract purchaser of real estate belongs in the marital estate even when the seller retains legal title.

Henderson v. Henderson · filed 2019-12-18(a)

Husband has a vested interest in the Contract, and his equitable interest in the Real Estate is not indeterminate but is derived from the Contract. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by including Husband’s contractual interest in the Real Estate in the marital estate.

All marital property, including property owned before marriage or acquired before final separation, enters the marital estate for division.

Avery v. Laura Mae Avery (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-01-17(a)

We further note that all marital property, whether owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before final separation of the parties, or acquired by their joint efforts, goes into the marital pot for division. ... Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly considered the Buckeye Road property as part of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a court to include and value tax liabilities arising from transactions during the marriage before dividing the marital estate.

Hughes v. McKenzie · filed 2024-09-10(a)

However, the tax liability resulted from transactions that took place during the marriage. ... Although the court may deviate from the presumptive equal ... division, it must first place all property in the marital pot, decide on a valuation, and then distribute the marital property in a just and reasonable manner.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires courts to include inherited property in the marital estate before dividing it.

Lopp v. Lopp · filed 2025-09-17(a)

We agree with Gatton’s reading of Section 31-15-7-4. ... To the extent Morey suggests that a trial court may exclude inherited property from the marital pot, it misstates the one-pot theory of marital property.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of property owned before marriage, acquired before final separation, or acquired through the spouses’ joint efforts.

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Ruth Morales v. Rolando Morales (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-07-28(a)

Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4 provides the trial court shall divide the property of the parties in a just and reasonable manner, whether that property was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before the final separation, or acquired by their joint efforts.

Marital property includes liabilities one spouse incurred before the marriage.

Capehart v. Capehart · filed 1999-02-10(a)(1)

This conclusion was error. Liabilities incurred by one spouse prior to the marriage are marital property subject to division by the court.

Student loan debt incurred before marriage belongs in the marital estate for division.

In re the Marriage of: Deborah D. Skelton v. Rodney D. Skelton (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-28(a)(1)

We also conclude that the $31,073.00 student loan debt that was incurred prior to the parties’ marriage should have been included in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires premarital student loan debt to be included in the marital pot before property is divided, though its omission may be harmless.

Gorham v. Fazia Deen-Bacchus (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-04-02

While we agree with Gorham that his premarital student loan debt should have been included in the martial pot, we conclude that any error that occurred could only be considered harmless.

Section 31-15-7-4 guides a trial court’s division of marital assets but does not limit what parties may include in a property settlement agreement.

Kiltz v. Kiltz · filed 1999-03-29

However, IC 31-15-7-4 merely guides a trial court’s distribution of marital assets. When the parties craft property settlement agreements, they are free to include provisions that a trial court cannot otherwise include in its marital division.

Subsection (b) permits a trial court to divide marital property justly and reasonably while awarding family assets to one spouse.

Wallace v. Wallace · filed 1999-08-13(b)

In this regard, we note that IC § 31-15-7-4(b) provides several options that the trial court may utilize upon remand in such a way as to provide a just and reasonable division of the marital assets between the parties, while at the same time awarding to Chris those assets which are closely connected with his family.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property; dividing business venues abuses the trial court’s discretion when it effectively restricts a spouse’s future income.

DeSalle v. Gentry · filed 2004-11-22

Indiana law requires that marital property be divided in a "just and reasonable manner" and provides for the statutory presumption that "an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable." Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4. ... Accordingly, we find that the trial court's division of toy show venues effectively resulted in an injunction against DeSalle's future income. Therefore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it divided the toy show venues between the former spouses.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of marital property; a spouse’s reduced earning potential caused by his own criminal conduct did not require a larger share.

Lambert v. Lambert · filed 2005-12-15(b)

In a marital dissolution action, the trial court must divide the marital property in a "just and reasonable manner." Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(b). ... We cannot impose a financial penalty upon Mother for Father's criminal conduct by awarding to him a greater percentage of the marital estate than he would otherwise be entitled. The trial court did not err in ordering an equal 'division of the marital assets.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) calls for a just and equitable division of marital property.

T.W.O. f/k/a T.L.W. v. G.A.W. · filed 2012-02-24(b)

The court’s goal is to divide the marital property in a just and equitable manner, Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b), and we presume just and equitable division is synonymous with equal division between the parties. ... Accordingly, we affirm the division of the marital estate.

In a dissolution of marriage, the court must divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner.

Morgal-Henrich v. Henrich · filed 2012-06-26(b)

In an action for dissolution of marriage, the trial court is required to divide the marital property in a “just and reasonable manner.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b). ... The trial court properly divided the marital assets, but the trial court abused its discretion when it calculated the child support owed by Husband.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires the trial court to divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner.

Schwan v. Schwan · filed 2012-12-11(b)

Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 governs the division of property in dissolution actions and requires that the trial court “divide the property in a just and reasonable manner.”

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of marital property.

In Re: The Marriage of: Bernard Lee, Jr. v. Jackie Smith · filed 2013-06-19(b)

Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 governs the division of property in dissolution actions and requires that the trial court “divide the property in a just and reasonable manner.”

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property, which is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In Re: The Marriage of Mikiko Hige v. Glick · filed 2014-01-31

Because this case turns on whether the trial court’s division of the marital property was just and reasonable, it is highly fact sensitive and is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. ... Without more, Hige has not established that the trial court abused its discretion in equally dividing the marital assets.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of the marital estate as a whole, without requiring reimbursement for every use of marital assets.

Rogness v. Roberta L. Rogness (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-02-10(b)

Because the trial court need only effectuate a just and reasonable distribution of the marital estate as a whole, it is not an abuse of discretion to accomplish its division without requiring Wife to reimburse Husband for one-half of her attorney fees.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable distribution of marital assets and liabilities; the court need not calculate net liability before distributing them.

Farrell v. Farrell · filed 2014-02-27(b)

The law requires only that the trial court distribute the marital assets and liabilities “in a just and reasonable manner.” I.C. § 31-15-7-4(b). Here, we find the trial court properly accounted for and divided all of the marital property.

Section 31-15-7-4(2) permits a court to award the marital home to one spouse and require an equalizing payment to the other.

Coate v. Timothy D. Coate (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-05-31(2)

Therefore, we find that it was entirely within the discretion of the trial court to set the real estate over to Timothy and then require Timothy to make an equalizing payment to Mary of $133,938.07.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of marital property; awarding one spouse the entire substantial marital estate may violate that requirement.

Carnahan v. Jason M. Carnahan (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-02-14(b)

In dissolution proceedings, the trial court is required to divide the property of the parties “in a just and reasonable manner.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b). ... While a deviation from the presumption of an equal division may be justified, we cannot agree that it was just and reasonable to completely exclude Wife from any share of the marital pot. Accordingly, we remand with instructions for the trial court to re-divide the Property between the parties in a just and reasonable manner.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a dissolution court to divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner.

Myer v. Michael A. Myer (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-04-19

Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 provides that the court in a dissolution action shall divide the property in a just and reasonable manner.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of marital property.

Harris v. Anthony J. Harris (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-05-12(b)

The trial court is required to divide the marital ... property in a “just and reasonable manner[,]” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b), and there is a rebuttable presumption that an equal division of the property is just and reasonable, Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5. ... Based on the poor record made by the parties in the trial court, we cannot say Wife has rebutted the presumption the trial court made a just and reasonable distribution or otherwise abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a just and reasonable division of marital property; an equal division may be reasonable when one spouse used inheritances and disability back pay to reduce a joint mortgage.

Sugars v. Heather Leanne Sugars (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-05-11(b)

Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(b) requires the trial court to divide the marital property in a “just and reasonable manner.” ... The trial court applied the presumption that an equal division of the marital estate was just and reasonable, and Husband did not rebut that presumption. We therefore affirm the trial court’s equal division of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires the court to divide marital property in a just and reasonable manner.

Tang v. Biru Zhang (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-06-11(b)

In dissolution proceedings, the trial court is required to divide the property of the parties “in a just and reasonable manner[.]” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b).

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property and permits a court to exclude a contingent shareholder debt from the marital estate.

Bringle v. Bringle · filed 2020-06-30

The ultimate question presented is whether it would be just and reasonable to include Husband’s purported shareholder debt in the marital estate. The trial court’s decision not to include the shareholder debt as a current liability of the marriage is supported by the record, well within the court’s discretion, and not clearly erroneous.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires a trial court to divide the marital estate in a just and reasonable manner.

Correa v. Bridgett Correa (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-08-31(b)

It is the duty of the trial court to divide the marital estate in a dissolution proceeding in a “just and reasonable manner.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b). ... Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate or in denying Husband’s motion to correct error.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property, and a substantial income disparity can support an unequal division of marital debt.

In Re: The Marriage of Eric Johnson v. Janet Johnson (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-03-29

In a dissolution action, the trial court must divide the property of the parties in a just and reasonable manner. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. ... Accordingly, the court did not err in ordering Husband to pay 90% of the loan.

Section 31-15-7-4(b)(2) permits a court to award a pension to the earning spouse and require installment payments to give the other spouse their share of the marital estate.

Cooley v. Cooley · filed 2024-03-20(b)(2)

When faced with these plans, courts have several options, including distributing the pension to the earning spouse and requiring that spouse to pay the other in installments until they receive their share of the marital estate. Kendrick, 44 N.E.3d at 726–27; I.C. § 31-15-7-4(b)(2). The trial court here did just that by awarding the pension to Husband and ordering him to make an equalization payment in installments to Wife.

Section 31-15-7-4(a)(2)(A) includes a vested remainder in real estate acquired during marriage as property subject to division.

Marriage of Moyars v. Moyars · filed 1999-10-20(a)(2)(A)

IC 31-15-7-4(a)(2)(A) provides that the trial court shall divide the property of the parties, including property acquired by either spouse after the marriage. ... David’s remainder interest in the real property which was transferred to him during the marriage is a marital asset subject to division.

A vested remainder interest acquired during marriage may be included in the property divided in a dissolution, even though the spouse has no present possessory interest.

In Re: the Marriage of: William Scott Wilson v. Andrea (Wilson) Gunning · filed 2013-07-03

In this case, the trial court chose to treat Wife’s vested remainder interest in the farmland acquired during the marriage as a marital asset capable of division and reasonably relied upon Husband’s tendered valuation in dividing the asset. ... We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

Property acquired before the dissolution petition belongs in the marital pot, but the court may value that property as of a later date before the property division hearing.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 2000-07-27(a)

We agree with Husband that the marital pot closes on the date the petition for dissolution is filed. ... However, the date of final separation only establishes what property is to be included in the marital pot, not necessarily the value of that property. As previously stated, the trial court has discretion when valuing the marital assets to set any date between the date of filing the dissolution petition (the final separation date) and the date of the hearing.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires premarital property to be included in the marital pot before division, but a spouse who invited its exclusion cannot obtain reversal on that basis.

Craig v. Craig · filed 2012-07-30

Husband appears to be technically correct that the trial court did not properly apply the “one-pot” method of dividing assets. However, we conclude that there is no reversible error in this case. ... In this case, any error by the trial court was invited by Husband.

Section 31-15-7-4(a)(2) includes property acquired before final separation in the marital estate; a court may account for an earlier physical separation when dividing that property.

Buchanan v. Buchanan · filed 2014-02-17(a)(2)

Although it was not required to do so, the trial court determined the date of the parties’ physical separation was the appropriate date for closing the marital pot given that after that date, the parties no longer resided together or conducted their affairs as husband and wife. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a)(2) (defining marital property to include property “acquired by either spouse in his or her own right . . . after the marriage; and . . . before final separation of the parties . . . .”) (emphasis added). Therefore the trial court did account for the lengthy separation in crafting the property division.

A trial court dividing marital property may choose a valuation date between the filing of the dissolution petition and the hearing, thereby allocating the risk of later changes in value.

Dierckman v. Dierckman · filed 2023-12-19(b)

In dissolution actions, trial courts are required by statute to divide the marital property “in a just and reasonable manner.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b). ... However, the trial court acted within its discretion in choosing the date by which to value the real estate and, thereby, assigning the risk of a future change in value.

Section 31-15-7-4(b) requires equal division of marital assets and liabilities absent an agreement unless evidence shows that equal division would not be fair and reasonable.

Spencer v. Spencer · filed 2001-07-30(b)

In such a case, Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4(b) requires an equal division of the marital liabilities and assets unless the evidence demonstrates that an equal division would not be fair and reasonable.

A child support arrearage held for a child is excluded from the marital estate because the custodial parent has no individual interest in it.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2002-02-21

Applying such meaning here, we conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the child support judgment was in-cludible as an asset of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 excludes child support arrearages from divisible marital property because the parent holds them in trust for the child.

Marriage of Elkins v. Elkins · filed 2002-02-25

IC § 31-15-7-4 (West 1998) provides that in a dissolution action, the court shall divide the property of the parties that was owned by either spouse individually before the marriage, acquired by the parties' joint efforts, or acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before the parties' final separation. ... Consistent with this reasoning, we conclude that support ar-rearages are not includable as marital property subject to division in a dissolution proceeding.

Section 31-15-7-4 includes FELA settlement proceeds attributable to earnings during the marriage in the marital estate, but excludes proceeds replacing future earnings after dissolution.

Beckley v. Beckley · filed 2003-07-01

To be sure, a small portion of the FELA settlement will be a part of the marital estate inasmuch as Carolyn filed for dissolution four months after Jack received the award. As a result, part of the FELA proceeds attributable to these four months should be included in the marital pot.

A FELA award is subject to division only to the extent it compensates losses incurred during the marriage; compensation for future losses is excluded.

Beckley v. Beckley · filed 2005-02-10(b)

In summary, we hold that any part of a FELA award representing future losses is not marital property subject to distribution. Rather, only that portion of the award intended as compensation for past losses, that is, losses incurred during the marriage, is included in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 treats a tax loss carryover as property subject to distribution in a dissolution proceeding.

Magee v. Garry-Magee · filed 2005-09-12

We agree with Missouri and New York that a tax loss carryover is property subject to distribution in a dissolution proceeding under Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires a just and reasonable division of marital property; applying a coverture fraction to a pension can be an abuse of discretion when it creates a large disparity after a long marriage.

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Carolyn Burns v. Michael Burns (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-03-14(b)

After the parties’ long marriage, the application of the coverture fraction formula in this case resulted in a large disparity in the division of assets, which we conclude was an abuse of discretion.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires a spouse’s pension survivor benefit to be included in the marital estate even though payment depends on that spouse outliving the pension holder.

Bock v. Bock · filed 2018-12-20(a)

The trial court did not clearly err in including Wife’s SBP interest in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires courts to include the premarital portion of a pension in the marital estate before dividing the property.

Gatton v. Gatton · filed 2024-12-18(a)

That said, we also must agree with Wife’s claim that the trial court erred in including only the coverture portion of Husband’s pension in the marital pot.

Pension rights acquired through the spouses’ joint efforts may be divided as marital property even if they become property after separation.

Aurs v. Brooke N. Aurs (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-04(a)

In an action for the dissolution of a marriage, “the court shall divide the property of the parties whether: (1) owned by either spouse before the marriage; (2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right: (A) after the marriage; and (B) before final separation of the parties; or (3) acquired by their joint efforts.” Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). ... Applying the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Marriage of Adams to this case, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Husband’s 1977 Fund pension rights were acquired by the joint efforts of the parties during the course of their marriage.

Section 31-15-7-4 treats income from jointly owned rental properties earned after the dissolution petition and before the court's valuation date as a marital asset.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2006-07-25

Because Shirley and Greg owned the rental properties together, the income the properties earned after the petition for dissolution was filed and before the court's valuation date was properly considered a marital asset under Indiana Code § 31-15-7-4.

Section 31-15-7-4 gives the trial court a nondelegable duty to divide the parties’ property, including a pension that the decree failed to distribute effectively.

Parham v. Parham · filed 2006-10-25

In addition, we note that the trial court had a nondelegable duty to divide the property. See Ind.Code § 31-15-7-4; Henderson v. Henderson, 401 N.E.2d 73, 74 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (under dissolution statute "the court shall divide the property"). Wife's motion to submit a revised QDRO informed the court that the part of the decree distributing the pension was for all intents and purposes a nullity and, as a result, that the trial court had not completely divided the parties' property. Thus, the trial court had an affirmative duty to amend the decree in order to divide the pension. It fulfilled that duty when, through the order granting Wife's motion, it provided a workable method for determining Wife's interest in Husband's pension in compliance with ERISA and the pension plan.

Section 31-15-7-4 gives a dissolution court authority to divide the parties’ property, and a dispute over whether military pay is property does not remove that authority.

Koonce v. Finney · filed 2017-01-13

Whether Husband’s military pay is “property” under Indiana Code § 31-9-2-98(3) is subject to interpretation, as is evident from the complexity of the arguments set forth by the parties and the variety of holdings in precedent. However, none of the parties’ current arguments regarding Husband’s military pay could deny the Dissolution Court of its authority to adjudicate the property division under Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-4 at the time the decree was entered.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) permits division of property acquired after final separation only if the spouses acquired it through joint efforts.

Davis v. Davis · filed 2006-12-18(a)

The trial court's authority to divide marital property is governed by Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4(a), which states that the court has authority to divide property that was (1) owned by either spouse before the marriage; (2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after the marriage and before final separation of the parties; or (3) acquired by their joint efforts. ... Consequently, the 2004 crop proceeds may not be included in the pot of divisible marital assets.

Property received after a dissolution petition is filed is outside the marital estate; the court must account for it when dividing property.

In Re: The Marriage of: Caleb E. Campbell v. Campbell · filed 2013-06-19(a)

The Pell Grant funds were distributed after the date Mother filed her petition for dissolution and thus were the separate property of Father as the intended recipient of the funds. ... In dividing the marital property, the court erred in failing to account for or provide an offset for the amount of the Pell Grant funds.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) excludes property a spouse acquires in his or her own right after final separation from division as a marital asset.

Judith (Lund) Pherson v. Lund · filed 2013-10-15(a)

Accordingly, the Legislature has provided that property acquired by one spouse in his or her own right after final separation should not be considered a marital asset subject to division by the dissolution court.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) excludes property acquired after final separation, including later pension contributions, from the marital estate.

Hay v. Hay · filed 2014-09-11(a)

As a matter of law, the marital estate consists only of the property that is acquired by either spouse prior to the marriage or during the marriage but before the parties’ final separation. I.C. § 31-15-7-4(a). By definition, any property that Husband or Wife acquired after the Filing Date—including Wife’s post-dissolution contributions to her ISTRF—is excluded from the marital estate and, therefore, cannot be contemplated by the Distribution Order.

Property acquired after the parties’ final separation is excluded from the marital estate under Section 31-15-7-4(a).

Crider v. Crider · filed 2015-02-27(a)

Notwithstanding the trial court’s findings concerning Wife’s ownership interest in the Florida Property, we hold that it does not constitute marital property because it was procured subsequent to the Filing Date.

Property acquired after final separation is excluded from the marital estate, but an account opened afterward may be included if its funds are not shown to be the spouse’s own post-filing funds.

Haskin v. Tammy Haskin (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-03-23

Again, property acquired after the final separation of the parties is not part of the marital estate. I.C. § 31-15-7-4. ... Because Husband has not established that the money in the 529 accounts is from his own post-filing funds, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by including the accounts in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) excludes wages or salary earned after a dissolution petition is filed from marital property subject to division.

In the Matter of the Marriage: Menashi Cohen v. Fran Cohen (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-11-18(a)

Salary or wages Wife received from Deal Zone during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings were not “property . . . (1) owned by either spouse before the marriage; (2) acquired by either spouse in his or her own right: (A) after the marriage; and (B) before final separation of the parties; or (3) acquired by their joint efforts.” See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 (a).

Section 31-15-7-4 limits divisible marital property to property owned by the spouses before their final separation.

Unsupervised Estate: Elnor Bugher v. Bugher · filed 2026-06-15

Marital property consists of property owned by the divorcing parties before their final separation. See Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. Property acquired by either Chick or Shirley after their separation was not part of the marital estate to be divided.

Stock options that remained unvested when the dissolution petition was filed are excluded from the marital estate even if granted during the marriage.

Fischer v. Fischer · filed 2017-01-19(a)

Because the stock options at issue vested after the date of the parties’ final separation, they should not have been included in the marital estate as an asset subject to division.

Growing crops present when a dissolution petition is filed are marital property that must be included in the property to be divided.

Marriage of Webb v. Schleutker · filed 2008-08-15(a)

Because we conclude that growing crops are marital assets, the crops growing in the ground but not yet harvested on the date Wife filed the dissolution petition were properly included in the marital pot.

Section 31-15-7-4 allows a trial court to include or omit interest when dividing marital property.

Rovai v. Rovai · filed 2009-09-02(b)(2)

Rather, the dissolution statutes confer upon trial courts the authority to order interest or not in the course of fashioning a just and reasonable division of property.

Section 31-15-7-4(b)(2) leaves interest on an equalization payment to the trial court’s discretion when dividing marital property.

Dina Hasten Cohen v. Cohen · filed 2019-03-18(b)(2)

Thus, contrary to Wife’s claims, the trial court was not required as a matter of law to include an award of interest when it reduced the equalization payment to a judgment. Instead, the decision to award interest, or not, was wholly within the discretion of the trial court.

Section 31-15-7-4 does not permit a property division exceeding the net value of the marital estate absent a finding of dissipation of assets.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2010-12-20

Absent a finding of dissipation of assets, a property division cannot exceed the value of the marital assets without being considered an improper form of maintenance and an abuse of discretion.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires marital debts to be included in the property divided between the spouses.

Birkhimer v. Birkhimer · filed 2012-12-26(a)

Marital property includes both assets and liabilities. Id. “The trial court has no authority to exclude or set aside marital property but must divide all property.” Id. Lisa is correct that the debt to her father should be included in the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4 includes marital debts existing when the dissolution petition is filed in the property division, even if they are later discharged in bankruptcy.

In re the Marriage of: Monica S. Yoldash n/k/a Monica S. Orta v. Yoldash · filed 2014-07-18(a)

The trial court is tasked with dividing the marital pot “in a just and reasonable manner” and “has no authority to exclude or set aside marital property.” I.C. § 31-15-7-4; Smith, 938 N.E.2d at 860. ... Thus, as of the July 23, 2009 filing date, the majority of Ibrahim’s now-discharged debt was a marital liability subject to equitable division.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires the court to include all marital property, including debts, when valuing and dividing the marital estate.

In Re: The Marriage of Robin R. Phillips v. Thomas R. Lloyd (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-11-17(a)

The trial court must divide all marital property. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a). In valuing the marital estate, it was illogical for the trial court to fully account for the Edwards loan, which Husband had initially disputed, yet to exclude the non-Edwards debt that Husband agreed to at the hearing. Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the additional debt paid following the sale of the Zanesville Rentals in its valuation of the marital estate.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) requires marital debts to be included in the marital estate when dividing property.

Voorhis v. Danielle Voorhis (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-10-22(a)

Thus, the loan debt is a marital liability and it should have been considered by the trial court in fashioning an equitable division of the marital property. Therefore, we remand with instructions to the trial court to include the debt associated with the HHR in the marital pot and determine how the debt should be allocated.

Section 31-15-7-4 requires the court to divide marital property, including liabilities; money given to the spouses as a gift is not a marital debt.

Hill v. Annette Hill (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-09-29

In a dissolution of marriage action, the court is required to divide all property of the parties, whether the property was owned by either spouse before the marriage, acquired be either spouse after the marriage but before separation, or acquired through the parties’ joint efforts. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4. ... Thus, we hold the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the monies Mother gave to the couple during their marriage were gifts rather than loans, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the marital estate accordingly.

A chose in action arising during marriage is marital property, and its settlement proceeds may be divided when their value is established before the final hearing.

Edwards v. Bonilla-Vega · filed 2013-01-31(a)

Pursuant to statute, a property right acquired during the marriage is subject to division as part of the dissolution. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(a).

Section 31-15-7-4(a) generally excludes a spouse’s personal medical and dental debts incurred after the dissolution petition from the marital pot.

Lawless v. Lawless · filed 2014-05-19(a)

To the extent Wife incurred medical or dental costs for herself after the date of Husband’s petition to dissolve the marriage, these were not properly included in the marital pot.

Section 31-15-7-4 defines what belongs in the marital pot; a debt incurred by one spouse after the dissolution petition is filed is generally excluded.

Pitcavage v. Pitcavage · filed 2014-06-12

The marital pot incorporates “all the property acquired by the joint effort of the parties” before the marriage and up to the date of final separation. Id. See I.C. § 31-15-7-4. ... In general, any debt incurred by one party after the filing date of the dissolution petition is not to be included in the marital pot. ... Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to include the Wolf Technical debt in the marital pot as a post-filing expense.

Section 31-15-7-4(a) permits a court dividing marital property to credit mortgage payments made after the dissolution petition, including payments made while the paying spouse briefly lived in the home.

Krieger v. Mark Krieger (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-08-14(a)

A trial court must divide the property of the parties to a marital dissolution in a ... just and reasonable manner. Webb v. Schleutker, 891 N.E.2d 1144, 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing I.C. § 31-15-7-4(a)). ... Because the marital estate closed on October 9, 2017, and because the parties will split the proceeds from the sale of the marital home after June 2020, we cannot say that ... the dissolution court abused its discretion when it awarded Husband a credit for all of the mortgage payments he had made, including the ones he made while he lived there for a short time in late 2017.

Section 31-15-7-4(b)(4) directs a dissolution court to divide vested retirement benefits by assigning each party a percentage; that property division remedy is unavailable to unmarried cohabitants.

Harshaw v. Harshaw · filed 2021-02-04(b)(4)

Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4(b)(4) provides that a dissolution court “shall” divide vested retirement benefits “by setting aside to either of the parties a percentage of those payments either by assignment or in kind at the time of receipt.” ... Division of property is not available to unmarried cohabitants.

A spouse’s trust interest with ongoing mandatory income payments may be included in the marital property subject to just and reasonable division.

Roberts v. John A Roberts, Jr. · filed 2023-09-20

Ind. Code § 31-15-7-4 governs the division of property in dissolution actions and requires that the trial court divide the property in a just and reasonable manner. ... In light of the Trust’s assets, sources of income, and ongoing mandatory payments, we cannot say that Wife’s interest is too remote or speculative to be capable of division or that she does not have a presently fixed right to future enjoyment.

When an agreement does not resolve the disposition of a pre-embryo upon divorce, the court must balance the parties’ interests and award it in a just and reasonable manner.

Freed v. Freed · filed 2024-01-26(b)

If the contract approach does not resolve the parties’ dispute, the trial court should then seek to balance the parties’ interests. The balancing approach reflects Indiana trial courts’ role in dissolution proceedings: Mother and Father have an interest in disposition of the pre-embryo after their divorce, and the trial ... court must weigh their interests and award the pre-embryo “in a just and reasonable manner.” I.C. § 31-15-7-4(b).