From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harlan v. Harlan

Supreme Court of Indiana
Oct 22, 1990
560 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 1990)

Summary

affirming and quoting Harlan v. Harlan, 544 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989)

Summary of this case from Hartley v. Hartley

Opinion

No. 49S02-9010-CV-680.

October 22, 1990.

Appeal From the Marion County Superior Court, Civil Division; Michael T. Dugan II, Special Judge, No. S586-0255.

Deborah L. Farmer, Campbell Kyle Proffitt, Noblesville, for appellant.

B. Keith Shake, Scott S. Morrisson, James H. Rownd, Henderson, Daily, Withrow Devoe, Molly P. Rucker, Michael Cheerva, Rucker Cheerva, Indianapolis, for appellee.


ON CIVIL PETITION TO TRANSFER


Following the dissolution of their marriage, the parties each appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded as to the division and distribution of marital property. Harlan v. Harlan (1989), Ind. App., 544 N.E.2d 553.

The husband petitioned to transfer, and oral argument was conducted. The principal issue, one of first impression before this Court, involves the statutory construction of Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-11.1:

The court, in determining what is just and reasonable in dividing property under section 11 [31-1-11.5-11] of this chapter, shall consider the tax consequences of the property disposition with respect to the present and future economic circumstances of each party.

The Court of Appeals held that the statute requires the trial court to consider only the direct or inherent and necessarily incurred tax consequences "of the property disposition." 544 N.E.2d at 555. The husband contends that the statute should be construed to compel the trial court to consider potential tax liabilities associated with an asset being awarded to a party, even if the tax consequences are not immediate and definite.

Because this issue is frequently seen in marriage dissolution proceedings, we grant transfer to express our approval of the decision reached by the Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3), the opinion of the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.

DeBRULER, J., dissents.

GIVAN, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Harlan v. Harlan

Supreme Court of Indiana
Oct 22, 1990
560 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 1990)

affirming and quoting Harlan v. Harlan, 544 N.E.2d 553, 555 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989)

Summary of this case from Hartley v. Hartley

In Harlan v. Harlan (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 1246, our supreme court affirmed our holding in Harlan v. Harlan (1989), Ind. App., 544 N.E.2d 553, 555, "that the statute requires the trial court to consider only the direct or inherent and necessarily incurred tax consequences of the property disposition."

Summary of this case from DeHaan v. DeHaan
Case details for

Harlan v. Harlan

Case Details

Full title:JOYCE E. HARLAN, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BELOW), v. HAL P. HARLAN, APPELLEE…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Oct 22, 1990

Citations

560 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. 1990)

Citing Cases

Hartley v. Hartley

" "[T]he statute requires the trial court to consider only the direct or inherent and necessarily incurred…

Wanner v. Hutchcroft

The statute requires the trial court to consider only the direct or inherent and necessarily incurred tax…