## Facts

- Elizabeth Roetter (Wife) and Michael P. Roetter, Jr. (Husband) married in 2014 without a premarital agreement.
- At the time of marriage, Husband brought substantially more property into the relationship, including retirement accounts totaling more than $465,000 (including a whole-life IRA and a 401(k)) and other insurance-related assets.
- Wife entered the marriage with more than $100,000 in student-loan debt and had not completed her college degree.
- The parties had two children during the marriage. One child was diagnosed with autism and required significant supervision and services.
- The parties agreed Wife would stop working outside the home to provide full-time childcare. By the time of the final hearing, Wife had been out of the workforce for about five years and asserted she could earn roughly $30,000 per year at most, and possibly could not work depending on the children’s needs.
- Husband worked throughout the marriage and earned over $100,000 annually. His retirement accounts increased materially during the marriage.
- Wife filed for dissolution in 2019. A bench trial occurred in 2020.
- In dividing property, the trial court identified the parties’ assets and debts under Indiana’s “one-pot” approach, then immediately “set aside” (for distribution purposes) the premarital value of Husband’s retirement accounts (and certain other items) to Husband and assigned Wife’s entire student-loan balance to Wife.
- After those set-asides, the trial court calculated a remaining net marital amount and awarded Wife 55% of that remaining net figure, citing the disparity in the parties’ incomes and earning ability; the practical result was that Wife received a much smaller portion of the overall gross marital estate than the stated 55/45 division suggested.
- The trial court also ordered Husband to pay Wife rehabilitative maintenance of $100 per week for 18 months, and allowed Wife to keep a previously advanced $12,000 amount “in lieu of” additional maintenance payments.
- Wife appealed, challenging both the rehabilitative maintenance award and the property division.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Wife rehabilitative maintenance of $100 per week for 18 months (along with allowing Wife to retain a $12,000 advance) rather than awarding a longer or larger rehabilitative-maintenance award.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital estate by using set-asides that returned the premarital value of Husband’s retirement accounts to Husband and assigned Wife all of her student-loan debt, producing an overall distribution that was materially different from the court’s stated 55/45 allocation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rehabilitative maintenance award, holding the amount and duration (considered together with Wife’s retention of the $12,000 advance) were within the trial court’s discretion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the property division in part and remanded, concluding the trial court’s method of distribution resulted in a property split far more favorable to Husband than the stated 55/45 allocation and was not adequately supported under the statutory distribution factors.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to enter a property distribution more consistent with the stated division and the statutory analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana applies a “one-pot” theory in dissolution: the trial court must identify all property owned by either spouse before final separation as part of the marital estate, including premarital assets and premarital debts.
- Indiana Code § 31-15-7-5 creates a rebuttable presumption that an equal (50/50) division of the marital estate is just and reasonable; the trial court may order an unequal division only if supported by the statutory factors and the record.
- Appellate review of property division is for abuse of discretion. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.
- In evaluating whether a deviation from equal division is justified, the court must consider statutory factors such as each spouse’s contribution to acquiring property, the extent property was acquired before marriage or through gift/inheritance, the parties’ economic circumstances at dissolution, and their earning ability.
- A trial court’s description of a division (for example, calling it a 55/45 split) must align with the distribution it actually orders. A distribution method that effectively yields a much different overall split may be reversed when it is not adequately justified.
- Rehabilitative spousal maintenance under Indiana law is discretionary and time-limited (not exceeding three years). A maintenance award will be upheld unless it is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

## Conclusion

Roetter holds that, while a trial court has broad discretion in dissolution matters, that discretion has limits: a court may include premarital assets and debts in the one-pot estate and may award rehabilitative maintenance within statutory bounds, but it must ensure the property distribution it orders matches the division it states and is supported by the statutory factors, especially where caregiving responsibilities and earning-capacity disparities bear directly on the spouses’ post-dissolution economic circumstances.


Roetter v. Roetter, 174 N.E.3d 1144 (2021)