from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable James R. Heuer,
Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D07-0702-DR-153
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Stephen P. Rothberg Fort Wayne,
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cynthia Hogan Fort Wayne, Indiana
Roberta L. Renbarger Fort Wayne, Indiana.
of the Case
Fazia Deen-Bacchus ("Wife") appeals the dissolution
court's February 2016 order in which the court directed
Harold M. Bacchus, Jr. ("Husband") to promptly
transfer certain amounts from three investment accounts
("the investment accounts") to Wife. Wife raises a
single issue for our review, which we restate as follows:
whether the dissolution court erroneously interpreted its
January 2011 property distribution order, in which the court
had set aside the investment accounts to Wife as "her
property, " when the court ordered Husband in February
of 2016 to transfer only the January 2011 value of the
investment accounts to Wife. We reverse and remand with
and Procedural History
The facts underlying Wife and Husband's dissolution and
the distribution of the marital estate were stated by this
court on appeal from the January 2011 order:
Husband and Wife married in September 1985 and have three
children, two of whom are now emancipated. Wife petitioned to
dissolve the marriage on February 7, 2007. At the time, Wife
was an attorney who had been admitted to practice just a few
years earlier, and Husband was an Air Force physician and an
emergency room physician. The parties also owned and operated
a business, Med-I-Qwik.
The trial court dissolved the marriage in January 2009 but
left disposition of the marital property pending. Later that
year, Husband retired from the Air Force and his contract as
an emergency room physician was terminated. A hearing
regarding disposition of the marital property was held over
several days. The trial court subsequently entered an order
in January 2011 identifying marital assets and debts, finding
the net worth of the marital property to be $1, 405, 763, and
giving Wife 55% and Husband 45% of the property.
Both parties filed motions to correct error. After a hearing
over another several days, the trial court entered an order
in February 2012 reducing the net worth of the marital
property to $1, 353, 333 and dividing the property equally
between the parties. . . .
Bacchus v. Deen-Bacchus, No. 02A03-1203-DR-119, 2013
WL 1614972 (Ind.Ct.App. Apr. 16, 2013) ("Bacchus
Also in the January 2011 order, the court "granted"
Wife "as her property" the investment accounts,
along with numerous other assets. Appellant's App. Vol. 2
at 48. Elsewhere in its order, the court found the investment
accounts to have values of $305, 755 (Prudential SEP IRA
account #9594); $67, 961 (Prudential Annuity account #5952);
and $81, 689 (Prudential Life Insurance account #3175).
However, in ordering that Wife be "granted" the
investment accounts "as her property, " the court
simply identified the assets granted to Wife without
reference to the court's valuation of those assets.
Id. Further, in their ensuing motions to correct
error, neither party challenged the court's
identification of the investment accounts as assets to be
distributed to Wife.
Both parties raised numerous issues for our review in
Bacchus I. After reviewing the parties'
arguments, we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded with instructions to the dissolution court. However,
neither party questioned on appeal the dissolution