Roetter v. Roetter

182 N.E.3d 221 (2022)

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

Elizabeth (W) and Michael (H) married in May 2014 with no prenuptial agreement. H had an IRA valued at just over $82,000; a 401K account valued at $383,000; and two life-insurance policies of nominal value. W had over $100,000 in student-loan debt for an incomplete college education. The marriage produced two children. W quit her job and devoted herself as a full-time caregiver. Mason suffers from autism and requires several types of therapy. H worked outside the home during the marriage and earned an annual salary of over $100,000. W petitioned for divorce in October 2019. They quarreled over spousal maintenance and distribution of the marital estate. W sought $100 in weekly spousal maintenance for three years due to the level of care required by Mason, along with fifty-five percent of the marital estate, half of the full value of the two retirement accounts, and for H to assume half of her student-loan debt. H objected to the spousal-maintenance request (disputing the level of care required for Mason) and requested the full value of both retirement accounts, save for fifty percent of the 401K's increase in value during the marriage. The trial court granted spousal maintenance but ordered H to pay her $100 per week for only eighteen months rather than three years. The court ordered W to 'retain the $12,000 advance' she had received toward her 'anticipated share' of the marital assets. The net assets totaled $956,899. W was assigned the full amount of her student-loan debt. H got the two life insurance policies along with the premarital value of the IRA and 401K. The 'remaining divisible marital pot' was $573,839. The trial court awarded to W fifty-five percent of the 'net marital estate' (totaling $322,499)-an appropriate departure from the presumptive equal division, the court reasoned, given the 'disparity' of the parties' 'income and earning abilities.' The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate. It pointed to W's role as primary caregiver to the children which improved H's ability to acquire and retain property, saved the couple from incurring outside childcare expenses, and adversely impacted W's economic circumstances. It remanded with instructions for the trial court to fashion a remedy 'closer to the fifty-five, forty-five split' requested by W.