# Augspurger v. Hudson

> Indiana Court of Appeals · January 30, 2004 · 802 N.E.2d 503

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736899

## Case

- **Full name:** Gilbert Randall AUGSPURGER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Julie E. HUDSON, Appellee-Petitioner
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 30, 2004
- **Citations:** 802 N.E.2d 503; 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 153; 2004 WL 178557
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Friedlander, Riley, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 47 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/9736899

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that although wife received more marital assets than husband, vast disparity in income of the wife, $90 per week, and husband, $1700 per week, justified award of attorney fees to wife

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
I respectfully concur in result as to Part 3 concerning the award of spousal maintenance to Wife. In this regard, at the outset, it is necessary to examine the majority's conclusion that the so-called findings of fact "are sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion that Wife is entitled to spousal maintenance. ..." Op. at 510.
First and foremost, the so-called findings are not findings at all. They are mere recitations of testimony, witness opinion and medical diagnosis. At no point does the trial court find such testimony, opinion and diagnosis to be the fact. Moore v. Indiana Family and Social Services Admin., 682 N.E.2d 545 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). Such pronouncements are inadequate as a basis for reviewing the judgment of the court and may be considered surplusage. Perez v. United States Steel Corp., 426 N.E.2d 29, 33 (Ind.1981).
Although neither party on appeal has challenged the specificity of the purported findings, it is nevertheless inappropriate for this court to cloak the trial court recitations in the garb of true factual determinations and specific findings as to those facts. Van-Scyoc v. Mid-State Paving, 787 N.E.2d 499, 508-09 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). Accordingly, as directed by our Supreme *516 Court in Perez, we should consider the evidentiary recitations as mere surplusage.
The case is thus left in the posture of a general judgment without supporting specific findings of fact as to the issue in question. In other words, the trial court has failed to make findings upon some issues, and therefore the general judgment controls as to those issues. D.A.X., Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 659 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied. If our appellate review were conducted in this posture we would look to the evidence of record which would support the general judgment as to spousal maintenance. As noted, the trial court has set forth that evidence and therefore permits a meaningful review by this court. Accordingly, I conclude that the evidence does support the award of spousal maintenance and for that reason concur in result as to Part 3.
As to whether the maintenance award was improper because it included future medical treatment by Dr. Shealy, I agree with the majority that the award was not improper. I would merely add a parenthetical observation that the award of $6000.00 was for a brief two-week period of treatment. It would appear that Wife received such treatment.
Subject to the above comments and observations, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736899. Public record. Not legal advice.