Angela Locker v. Roger Locker (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01A05-1610-DR-2315

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; March 5, 2017; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Memorandum Decision, dated March 6, 2017, from the Indiana Court of Appeals addresses the dissolution of marriage between Angela Locker (Wife) and Roger Locker (Husband). The Wife filed for divorce on July 11, 2014, after which the trial court dissolved their marriage and divided the property. Wife appealed the trial court’s decision, claiming it abused its discretion by not awarding her compensation for health insurance premiums paid on Husband's behalf, one-half of joint tax returns, and for Husband's failure to maintain a savings account for living expenses. The court found no error in the trial court's decision and affirmed the ruling.

The parties were married on September 30, 2011, with a prenup in place that stated neither party would claim any rights to the other's property. Following their marriage, they lived in Wife's home, with Wife covering significant household expenses totaling $75,306.65. Husband, who owned a retail business, contributed to living expenses but did not track his payments. 

Wife obtained health insurance for Husband through her employer, where he initially reimbursed her for three months but later failed to continue payments due to financial difficulties in his business. After Wife's retirement in 2013 due to illness, she had to pay the full premium for Husband's coverage until December 31, 2014. The court's decision ultimately upheld the trial court's findings regarding these financial matters.

The parties filed joint federal income tax returns for the years 2011, 2012, and 2013. In 2011, $8,418 was withheld from the Wife’s salary, and they received a $6,014.06 tax refund, which Wife claims she was unaware of due to Husband's assertion that the IRS had taken the refund to cover his back taxes. In 2012, $7,423 was withheld from Wife’s salary, and they received a $6,922.02 refund, from which Husband issued a $3,400 cashier’s check to Wife. In 2013, $9,963 was withheld from Wife’s income, leading to a refund of $9,475, but Husband withdrew $8,600 of this refund. Throughout the marriage, Wife had access to the joint checking account and occasionally used its funds. Wife acknowledged that Husband’s business losses contributed to larger tax refunds, but no evidence was presented regarding her potential tax liability had she filed separately.

Regarding the farm, it was specified in the parties’ Agreement that Wife had no interest in the property, and she waived any claims to support or property division in the event of dissolution. Husband sold the 40-acre farm in April 2013 and opened a Crossroads Credit Union Account to deposit at least one payment from the sale. He used this account for shared expenses and added Wife's name at her request in April 2014, stating that only funds from the farm sale were deposited.

Wife filed a Dissolution Petition on July 11, 2014, requesting the marriage's dissolution and division of the marital estate according to their Pre-Nuptial Agreement, along with any other just relief. An evidentiary hearing was held by the trial court where both parties presented their evidence and arguments.

The trial court issued a Dissolution Order following an evidentiary hearing, detailing the financial judgments and obligations of both parties. The court denied Wife’s request for a total judgment of $71,690.22, which included a return of tax refunds ($22,404.00), health insurance premiums ($22,796.84), and half of the proceeds from the sale of Husband’s real estate ($26,759.38). The court noted that the tax refund was inflated due to Husband's business losses and that Wife had access to the joint bank account where the refund was deposited, thus denying her full return of the refund.

Regarding the real estate proceeds, the court found the joint bank account was overdrawn at the time of filing, creating a debt rather than an asset to divide, and assigned Husband responsibility for the overdrawn amount of $1,124.15. For health insurance reimbursement, the court acknowledged Wife provided coverage for nearly three years based on Husband’s promise to repay, but she failed to establish equitable estoppel. Therefore, Husband was ordered to reimburse Wife $5,412.06 within thirty days.

Wife's claim for $9,484.80 in attorney fees was denied based on a provision in their Prenuptial Agreement that waived such claims in the event of dissolution. Additionally, Husband was ordered to remove his personal property from Wife’s premises within sixty days, with any remaining property subject to disposal at Wife's discretion, and he would bear the associated costs.

The marriage was declared irretrievably broken, and Wife’s maiden name, Angela Johnson, was restored. The court awarded a judgment of $5,412.06 to Wife, which will accrue interest until paid, and mandated that Husband satisfy the overdrawn account within the same thirty-day period. Both parties are required to execute necessary documents to fulfill the decree's terms. An appeal has been filed following the order.

Wife asserts that the trial court erred by not ruling in her favor regarding three key issues: (1) reimbursement for health insurance premiums paid for Husband, (2) entitlement to one-half of the parties’ joint tax returns, and (3) Husband’s failure to maintain a savings account for living expenses. The standard of review indicates that factual findings made by the trial court control only the issues they address, while general judgment standards apply to unaddressed issues. Appellate courts may affirm judgments based on evidence even if some findings are erroneous, as long as the judgment is supported by the record. Clear error occurs only when findings lack factual support or rely on incorrect legal standards. Significant deference is given to trial court findings in family law cases due to the trial court's unique position to assess credibility and family dynamics. Rulings based on legal errors or insufficient evidence are subject to reversal. 

In the analysis section, the doctrine of estoppel, particularly equitable and promissory estoppel, is discussed. Although Wife presented her case under equitable estoppel at trial, she seeks to amend her argument on appeal to promissory estoppel, acknowledging that she did not raise this theory previously but believes it is more appropriate for her situation.

Wife contends the trial court erred by not applying promissory estoppel instead of equitable estoppel, but the court did not err because the principles of promissory estoppel were not argued at trial. As a result, any claims for relief based on promissory estoppel are waived. Regarding health insurance premiums, Wife asserts that the trial court wrongly denied her claim for reimbursement of $22,796.84 paid on Husband's behalf, claiming he agreed to reimburse her but only did so for three months. The trial court found she did not prove entitlement to repayment under equitable estoppel. To establish equitable estoppel, Wife needed to demonstrate fraud and meet specific factual criteria, which she failed to do. The court noted that her reliance on Husband’s promise lacked evidence of fraud and was based on future promises rather than misrepresentations of past or existing facts. Additionally, Wife was aware of Husband's financial struggles and could have canceled the insurance. Therefore, the trial court's decision that she failed to prove her claim was not clearly erroneous. Wife also argued that her payment should be considered a loan under promissory estoppel, but since this theory was not presented at trial, it is barred on appeal.

Wife argues that the trial court erred by not awarding her $7,744.53, representing half of the tax refunds from the 2011 and 2013 tax years. She asserts that there was an agreement to split the refunds, but Husband allegedly used the entire amount for personal benefit. For the 2011 tax year, they filed a joint return, with $8,418 withheld from Wife's salary, resulting in a $6,014.06 refund deposited into their joint account. For 2013, the couple again filed jointly, with $9,963 withheld from Wife's income, leading to a $9,475 refund, of which Husband withdrew $8,600. Wife claims she did not receive any refunds and was unaware of the 2011 refund, though the court finds it implausible since she signed the joint return and had access to the joint account, where she made withdrawals. The trial court noted that the larger refund stemmed from Husband's business losses, which reduced their tax liability. The court denied Wife's request for the full refund, stating the findings were not clearly erroneous.

On appeal, Wife seeks recovery through promissory estoppel but is barred from this argument as it was not raised in the lower court. Additionally, Wife contends that the trial court erred by not ordering Husband to pay her $26,759.38, which she claims is half of the funds from the sale of his farm deposited in a joint savings account. She argues that Husband agreed to maintain a retirement account for mutual benefit and that her name on the account entitles her to half of the funds.

Husband's farm was classified as property excluded from Wife's interest under their Agreement, which explicitly stated that neither party would acquire rights to the other's property due to marriage. Following the farm's sale in April 2013, Husband received semi-annual cash payments, some of which were deposited into a newly opened Crossroads Account. Although Wife insisted on being added to this account in April 2014, she did not contribute any funds. The trial court determined that the funds in the account, derived solely from the farm's sale, remained Husband's separate property, justifying the denial of Wife's request for half of these proceeds. Additionally, since Wife did not raise a promissory estoppel theory in lower court proceedings, she could not assert it on appeal. Consequently, the trial court's decision to deny Wife's request for a $71,690.22 judgment against Husband was affirmed.