In re Marriage of Richmond
Docket: No. 82A01-9206-CV-201
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; December 28, 1992; Indiana; State Appellate Court
Connie Richmond appeals the trial court's denial of her maintenance request following the dissolution of her marriage to William Richmond. Married in 1984, Connie initially supported herself and her son through various jobs but ceased working after William assured her she would not need to work due to his financial stability. During their marriage, Connie developed panic disorder and agoraphobia, which Dr. Holajter testified hindered her ability to work and engage in public activities. The trial court awarded Connie assets including the family residence, a joint bank account, and a car, along with attorney’s fees and $10,000 from William, but denied her maintenance claim. Connie's appeal is based on Indiana law allowing maintenance for spouses who are physically or mentally incapacitated, arguing her conditions impact her self-support capability. However, the trial court determined she was not incapacitated, affirming its discretion in the matter. The appellate review focuses on whether the trial court's decision was reasonable given the circumstances presented. Connie's claims of being physically and mentally unable to support herself are contradicted by evidence presented at the dissolution hearing. She acknowledged that her panic attacks are well-managed with medication. Despite her agoraphobia, she successfully coordinated a $40,000 home remodeling project, which involved frequent trips to various stores and collaboration with contractors, activities inconsistent with her claims of incapacitation. Dr. Holajter, who testified about her condition, admitted that medication controls her panic disorder and that he was unaware of her recent home project. He also acknowledged he has never treated her agoraphobia and that it does not necessarily prevent her from working at home. The trial court highlighted that Connie may not improve if her needs are indefinitely met, suggesting a lack of motivation to improve her situation. The record indicates that Connie is a competent and talented artist capable of managing her affairs, undermining her argument for maintenance. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to deny her request for maintenance was affirmed, with judges Sharpnack and Robertson concurring.