# Scott v. Scott

> Indiana Court of Appeals · June 25, 1996 · 668 N.E.2d 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526622

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry SCOTT, Appellant-Respondent v. Sharon SCOTT, Appellee-Petitioner
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 25, 1996
- **Citations:** 668 N.E.2d 691; 1996 Ind. App. LEXIS 815; 1996 WL 344204
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garrard
- **Judges:** Sharpnack, Kirsch, Garrard
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526622

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the statutory presumption of equal division and rebuttal of the same

## Opinion text

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with parts II, III and IV of the majority opinion. I also concur in the result 'as to part I of the opinion because I believe the court's discussion of potential or imputed income and the Child Support Cuidelines related thereto is beside the point. The trial court did not find that Larry was underemployed and might reasonably make $800 per week from his auto business. The court expressly determined that Larry's testimony on the subject was not credible, and the court expressly found that Larry was in fact earning about $300 per week from the business.
Thus, the available question (one which appellant leaves unargued) is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the court's determination. Under the facts, as discussed by the majority, it was. .And in any event, the issue is unavailable since Larry elected not to argue it on appeal. I therefore concur with the majority's conclusion that no error was committed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9526622. Public record. Not legal advice.