MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 23 2019, 9:11 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Amy D. Griner Thomas M. Dixon Mishawaka, Indiana Dixon, Wright & Associates, P.C. Osceola, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Richardo A. Nevarez, October 23, 2019 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-DR-496 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court Maria Verduzco, The Honorable Margot F. Reagan, Appellee-Petitioner, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D04-1606-DR-517 Robb, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-496 | October 23, 2019 Page 1 of 18 Case Summary and Issues [1] Richardo Nevarez (“Husband”) appeals the trial court’s awards and division of property following his divorce from Maria Verduzco (“Wife”). Husband presents three issues on appeal, which we restate as: 1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by including certain property as a marital asset; 2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the presumption of equal division of marital assets; and 3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in any respect, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] Husband and Wife were married on June 5, 2008. They have no children of the marriage; however, Wife has three children from a previous relationship. During the marriage, Husband was self-employed and owned a landscaping business and, later, a business through which he bought, rehabbed, and sold houses (hereinafter, “house-flipping business”). He operated his businesses on a cash basis and provided no evidence to the trial court regarding his income from the businesses. Wife, who is an undocumented immigrant, worked in a restaurant. Wife provided no specific evidence of her income but testified that she contributed between $400.00 and $450.00 bi-weekly to the parties’ joint bank account for “rent and the bills.” Transcript, Volume 2 at 9. She also testified that she assisted Husband in his house-flipping business but received no compensation for her work. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-496 | October 23, 2019 Page 2 of 18 [3] During the marriage, Husband purchased a house on East Fox Street in South Bend, Indiana. The parties, together, owned a 2003 Lincoln Navigator, a 1999 Ford Expedition, and a 2005 Harley Davidson motorcycle.1 The Navigator and the Expedition each had a loan against it. The parties also carried credit card debt. [4] The parties separated in fall of 2015. On June 2, 2016, Wife filed a pro se Verified Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. In her petition, Wife indicated that there were no assets or debts of the marriage to be divided. 2 [5] No action was taken in the dissolution proceeding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals