Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Beckley v. Beckley

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 2005No. 05S02-0311-CV-498Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDickson, J.

I concur with the majority's conclusion that any part of an FELA settlement representing future losses is not marital property, and that any portion intended as compensation for losses incurred during the marriage is included in the marital estate. I disagree, however, with the majority's decision to create a presumption that all assets of either or both parties in a dissolution case are marital property subject to division.

The applicable statute specifies with particularity those assets that are included in the marital estate subject to division. It provides:

In an action for dissolution of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Smith v. SmithIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API