Huelskamp v. Huelskamp

925 N.E.2d 167 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married on May 20, 2000. Two children were born. The parties separated in April of 2007, and W filed for divorce in November of 2007. The majority of the testimony at the trial concerned the ownership and valuation of the residential property; the operation, ownership, and valuation of the hog-finishing business; and parenting and custody issues. H and W have two children, Dalton, age 9, and Gabrielle, age 5. At trial, W requested that she be named the residential parent and that the visitation schedule that had been in effect for the past year should be continued. The guardian ad litem recommended shared parenting but suggested that the children should be exchanged in a public location to avoid confrontation between the parents. The trial court rejected any shared-parenting plan, due to the parties’ inability to cooperate, and designated W as the residential parent and legal custodian. The trial court granted H expanded visitation times, in excess of the standard orders, and ordered him to pay child support, with credit given for the extra time that the children would be spending with him. When the parties married in 2000, they lived in a very old and 'dilapidated' house on twenty acres of land that had been owned by Timothy's mother and father. Prior to the marriage, H purchased an undivided half interest in this property from his parents. In late 2001 and early 2002, the parties demolished the old home and built a new residence on the property, with H acting as general contractor and doing much of the construction work. H and W obtained a mortgage in 2002 for $120,000 to cover the expenses involved in building the home. The trial court found that H's half interest in the land was his separate property prior to the marriage and awarded that to him. The trial court determined that the house was marital property. The court awarded possession of the house to H, along with responsibility for the mortgage. The trial court did not find either of the parties' appraisals was credible and valued the property in accordance with the county tax appraisal record, which separated the land and building values and was utilized by both appraisers in coming to their conclusions. The tax appraisal put the value of the buildings at $145,770, leaving a marital equity of $40,130.40. W presented the testimony of a CPA expert witness who found that the value of H's share of the hog finishing partnership was $34,870. H did not present any expert testimony. The court ordered that the hog finishing business should be awarded to H, free and clear of any claim of W. However, the court found this was a business that was begun during the marriage and was entirely marital property subject to division. H received $60,341.40 more in marital property than W. In order to equalize the marital property division, the trial court ordered H to pay W her share, $30,170.70, within ninety days. H appealed.