# Leever v. Leever

> Indiana Court of Appeals · December 29, 2009 · 919 N.E.2d 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728127

## Case

- **Full name:** Lisa A. LEEVER, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Doug R. LEEVER, Appellee-Respondent
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 29, 2009
- **Citations:** 919 N.E.2d 118; 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 2833; 2009 WL 5124537
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Riley
- **Judges:** Baker, Friedlander, Riley
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9728127

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “the term ‘vest’ generally means either vesting in possession or vesting in interest. Vesting in possession connotes an immediate existing right of present enjoyment, while vesting in interest implies a presently fixed right to future enjoyment,” and holding that …
- noting “[a] constructive trust is imposed where a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it” and “[t]he duty to convey the property may arise becau…

## Opinion text

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting with separate opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to remand this cause to the trial court with instruction to re-divide the marital real estate consistent with Indiana Code section 831-15-7-5. While I agree with the majority that this cause should be remanded to the trial court with instruction to assign a value to the residence located at 211 North 8th Street and include it in the marital estate, I would instruct the trial court to equally divide the marital estate between Doug and Lisa.
The trial court, in its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, concluded very clearly that "5. The [clourt shall presume that an equal division of the marital property between the parties is just and reasonable." (Appellant's App. p. 22). Furthermore, I do not agree with the majority's conclusion that the "trial court intended to deviate from an equal division of marital property[.]" Op. at 125. Not only did the trial court fail to state any reasons to deviate from the equal division of the marital estate, there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the trial court was considering or intending an unequal division of the marital estate in favor of Doug. Therefore, I would instruct the trial court to equally divide the marital estate.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728127. Public record. Not legal advice.