Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brenda Alexander v. Donald Alexander

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 14, 2012No. 32A05-1108-DR-417Published

1DissentRiley, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s denial of incapacity maintenance. In essence, the majority relies on two express reasons to uphold the trial court’s denial of incapacity maintenance. These are 1) there is “no statutory requirement [under Ind.Code § 31-15-7-1] that special findings be entered where incapacity maintenance is denied;” and 2) and the trial court’s special finding regarding testimony from Brenda’s vocational expert amounted to a “recitation of evidence” that did not rise to the level of a statutory finding, op. pp. 880 n. 8, 881.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cannon v. CannonIndiana Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Matzat v. MatzatIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Clokey v. ClokeyIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API