IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JOSE DE JESUS CARRILLO PEREZ and MARIA GUADALUPE CARRILLO PEREZ, MARIA GUADALUPE VIDRIOS ZEPEDA f/k/a MARIA GUADALUPE CARRILLO PEREZ, Appellant-Respondent,
JOSE DE JESUS CARRILLO PEREZ, Appellee-Petitioner
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable Charles F. Pratt, Judge. Cause No. 02D07-1103-DR-183.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MATTHEW S. WILLIAMS, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MARK C. CHAMBERS, Haller & Colvin, P.C., Fort Wayne, Indiana.
MAY, Judge. VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.
Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda appeals the division of the marital estate in her dissolution proceeding. She alleges the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded her only 2.5% of her ex-husband's lottery winnings. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Maria married Jose De Jesus Carrillo Perez on February 7, 2002, and they lived together until their physical separation in March 2006. The couple never again lived together after the physical separation, but they did not file for legal separation or dissolution. During the next six years, the couple spoke only two or three times, never comingled assets, had separate bank accounts, and generally lived as single individuals. In January 2011, Jose purchased a Hoosier Lottery scratch off ticket and won two million dollars. Jose filed for dissolution of the couple's marriage in March 2011.
On October 21, 2011, Maria served Requests for Admission pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 36 on Jose. Jose did not answer any of those requests within the thirty days required by Rule 36. The trial court issued its Decree of Dissolution of Marriage on June 19, 2012. It ordered Jose to pay Maria $10,000.00 each year for five years from his annual lottery distributions, for a total payment of $50,000.00. Jose was further ordered to pay $2,852.00 toward Maria's attorney fees and $2,484.39 of her debts.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
The division of marital assets is within the trial court's discretion, and we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion. McCord v. McCord, 852 N.E.2d 35, 43 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006), trans. denied . A party challenging the division of marital property must overcome a strong presumption that the trial court considered and complied with the applicable statute. Id. at 44. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's disposition of
the marital property, and we may not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility ...