New Indiana case: unpaid, future lottery winnings marital property

My headline condenses the Indiana Court of Appeals' opinion in Helms v. Helms (PDF format). The case has two issues: 1) whether or not two lottery payments which were received after the date of separation should be included in the marital estate; and 2) should the lottery proceeds been equally divided between the parties.

The Court of Appeals decided that the property ought to have been included but found no error in the husband getting the full payment. I would describe this case as one where the battle was one but the war lost.

The Court of Appeals details the facts of the property division over two pages. The Court of Appeals opinion has a good discussion of vested property pages 6-7). The Court of Appeals also discusses deviations from a 50-50 split of the marital assets at some length (pages 8-13).
It should also be noted that, unlike in Capehart and Lulay, where the entire asset at issue was assigned to one party, here only two of twenty lottery payments, or 10% of the total lottery jackpot, are subject to the unequal division. In other words, even under the unequal division here, Donna will effectively receive the benefit of an equal division of 90% of the total lottery jackpot. As the trial court noted in its original order, “[i]t is obvious that substantially all of the marital estate is directly attributable to the lottery winnings which husband acquired before the marriage and brought into the marriage.” (Appellant’s App. 6).

The Court of Appeals offered the following consolation to the wife:

It should also be noted that, unlike in Capehart and Lulay, where the entire asset at issue was assigned to one party, here only two of twenty lottery payments, or 10% of the total lottery jackpot, are subject to the unequal division. In other words, even under the unequal division here, Donna will effectively receive the benefit of an equal division of 90% of the total lottery jackpot. As the trial court noted in its original order, “[i]t is obvious that substantially all of the marital estate is directly attributable to the lottery winnings which husband acquired before the marriage and brought into the marriage.” (Appellant’s App. 6).