Divorce Lawyers Indianapolis

The trial court’s classification of various accounts as the wife’s non-marital property was against the manifest weight of the evidence since balance statements provided the trial court with a recent balance for each of the accounts but clearly failed to satisfy the tracing requirement of affirmatively identifying the source of the funds. In re Didier

 A trial court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief where that relief did not preserve the status quo of the parties for purposes of equitable distribution of property.  In re Schwartz
 A mandatory injunction was not necessary to preserve the status quo in terms of the condition of the apartment which had served as the marital domicile prior to the wife’s unilateral removal of the furnishings; disruption to the status quo by itself does not mandate the issuance of injunctive relief, and husband must also establish the existence of a certain and ascertainable legal right, irreparable injury and an inadequate remedy at law.  In re Sherwin
See Divorce Dallas

 Where the marriage lasted only six years and petitioner presented evidence in the form of receipts for at least some of the improvements she claimed were made, the trial court must determine based on the evidence already presented whether those contributions to the marital estate made to respondent’s non-marital residence were clearly proved, and whether the marital estate had already been compensated; the amounts proved as credited to the marital estate and divided according to the provisions of this section.  In re Albrecht

 Where the court merely withdrew its finding of transmutation and affirmed award of money as being based upon wife’s share of marital property accumulated during marriage and as fair reimbursement of the wife’s share of marital contributions, this was an abuse of discretion, in the subdivision (c)(2) unequivocally required that reimbursement for marital contributions must be traceable by clear and convincing evidence.  In re Harmon
 Where petitioner’s award was approximately 25% of the estate, under the specific circumstances of the case, the court’s disposition was an abuse of discretion.  In re Hobbs
 The court abuse its discretion in failing to award all of the marital property.  In re Hobbs
 The trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property as if obligations from daughters represented bona fide accounts receivable with values established with equal certainty to other marital assets.  In re Smith

 Neither party accused the other of dissipation, but the trial court sua sponte found dissipation by the husband in maintaining his separate residence, thus the husband was never given the opportunity to present “clear and specific” evidence that his expenditures for the residence were legitimate, and the trial court abused its discretion in finding dissipation sua sponte because the trial produced no clear evidence that the husband spent more than reasonable sums to maintain his home.  In re Hahin
 An irreconcilable breakdown period, for purposes of identifying dissipation, does not extend from the initial signs of trouble in a marriage.  In re Hazel
 The issue in determining whether a dissipation is shown is whether the party used marital property for his own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage during a period when only that party had access to the funds.  In re Philips

 Trial court’s dual classification of a 59 acre tract of farm land and the marital home as 4/7 non-marital and 3/7 marital was erroneous because property may not have dual characteristics.  In re Benefield
 By finding a business to be non-marital but inventory of the business to be marital property, a trial court did not improperly attribute dual characteristics to the same property.  In re Pancner

 Absence of notice to the representative of the minor child in a custody proceeding did not affect the appellate court’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal, although the better proceeding did not affect the appellate court’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal, although the better procedure here would have been to have notified and minor through his duly court-appointed representative, and since the representative sought no leave to intervene in the appeal or file a brief, the court would proceed to the merits of the appeal.  In re Leopando

In General
 This Act does not mandate a recital of the specified factors in the judgment order or require written findings in any other form.  Allen v. Allen
Considered
 Trial court’s temporary order was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence that touched on various factors, including those listed in this section.  Levy v. Skilling
 The judgment below could not be affirmed as consistent with the best interests of the children when the judgment was silent as to those factors which this section required that the court consider.  Wurm v. Wurm
 The determining factor in a custody case is the best interest of the child and the decision whether or not to modify the child’s custody rests upon the court’s determination as to where that interest lies.  McWilliams v. McWilliams
Unspecified
 The statutory list of factors to be considered is not exclusive, nor must trial judge recite each factor upon which the court’s determination is made; but where non-statutory factors are considered determinative of the custody decision, such factors should not remain obscure, and must be supported by the record.  Hall v. Hall
 This section does not require that any specific findings or recitals be made; there is compliance with this Act where the record contains sufficient evidence concerning the specified factors.  Hollo v. Hollo

 Where the custody of a minor child is in dispute between a mother and father, a hearing should be had, whereby evidence on the question is adduced after the parties have had the opportunity to present testimony and each party as well as other witnesses is available for cross-examination.  Henrikson v. Henrikson
 A custody determination by a trial court is subject to an appeal by a reviewing court, and as the result of failing to have a separate hearing pertaining to custody, the appeals court is placed in the position of being unable to consider the evidence and examine the factors which led to the trial court’s decision.  Henrikson v. Henrikson
 Evidence of father’s unfitness was sufficient to require a hearing on the issue of child custody.  Szewczyk v. Szewczyk

 Where the trial court entered a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction against respondent from proceeding with any matrimonial action in any other jurisdiction and awarding temporary custody of the child, who was still in West Germany, to the petitioner, respondent’s appeal would be dismissed without further consideration of the issues raised on appeal unless, within 30 days after the date of filing the court opinion, the respondent filed an additional record showing she, in her own proper person, appeared in the trial court and turned over custody of the minor child to the petitioner.  In re Marks