## Facts

- John W. Akers and Stella Sellers (formerly Mrs. Akers) were formerly married.
- During the marriage, a Boston bull terrier came into Akers’s possession as a gift from a veterinarian.
- Evidence at trial showed Akers later gave the dog to his wife while they lived together as husband and wife.
- Sellers obtained a divorce; the divorce decree awarded her the home but made no order concerning the dog.
- After the divorce, Sellers remained in the home and retained custody of the dog.
- Akers filed a replevin action seeking possession, asserting legal title and claiming the dog belonged with him.
- The trial court found Akers had made a completed gift of the dog to Sellers and entered judgment awarding her possession.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Akers made a completed gift of the dog to Sellers, making her the owner and entitled to possession after their divorce.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Sellers.
- The court held that evidence the husband gave the dog to the wife during the marriage was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of ownership and entitlement to possession after divorce.
- The court declined to overturn the judgment on a sufficiency challenge where the record contained evidence supporting the trial court’s determination.

## Legal Principles

- A completed interspousal gift of personal property transfers ownership to the donee spouse.
- When a divorce decree does not dispose of a particular item of personal property, ownership is determined by ordinary property principles, including gift.
- On appeal, a judgment supported by evidence will not be reversed merely because the appellant asks the court to reweigh competing evidence.

## Conclusion

Because the record supported the trial court’s finding that Akers had given the dog to Sellers as a completed gift during the marriage, the appellate court affirmed that Sellers owned the dog and was entitled to possess it after the divorce notwithstanding the decree’s silence on the animal.


Akers v. Sellers, 114 Ind. App. 660, 54 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 1944)