Mathias, J.
Bradley Cooley (“Husband”) appeals the Morgan Superior Court’s decree of dissolution of his marriage to Shelly Cooley (“Wife”). Husband presents two issues for our review:
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Husband to obtain and subsidize a life insurance policy as security for his equalization payment, to be made in installments, to Wife.
- IWhether the trial court abused its discretion when it did not consider the potential tax consequences to him of giving Wife one-half of his future pension distributions.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
….
Husband first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to obtain and subsidize a life insurance policy naming Wife as the owner and beneficiary. Husband presents an issue of first impression for our courts, namely, whether a dissolution court has discretion to order a party to buy life insurance as security for an equalization payment.
Wife asserts that the trial court has that authority under Indiana Code section 31-15-7-8, which provides that, when it enters a dissolution decree, “the court may provide for the security, bond, or other guarantee that is satisfactory to the court to secure the division of property.” As this Court has stated, this “‘statutory language obviously affords the court the broadest possible discretion in requiring security.’” Birkhimer v. Birkhimer, 981 N.E.2d 111, 127 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting In re Marriage of Davis, 395 N.E.2d 1254, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)); see also Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (affirming trial court’s grant to Wife of security interest in Husband’s LLCs to secure equalization judgment), trans. denied. We agree with Wife that, under the circumstances here, Indiana Code section 31-15-7-8 gave the trial court discretion to order Husband to secure Wife’s share of the marital estate by way of obtaining a life insurance policy payable to Wife.
However, whether the trial court may add the values of those future premium payments to the equalization payment Husband owes Wife is another matter. Again, the trial court ordered Wife to pay the life insurance premiums but also ordered that “said premiums paid by Wife shall be added to the equalization payment[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 37. As Husband points out,
Indiana Code section 31–15–7–4 provides that the marital estate that the trial court must divide in a dissolution proceeding is comprised of the property owned or acquired by either party before the “final separation of the parties[,]” which is defined as “the date of filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage[.]” Ind. Code § 31–9–2–46. In other words, the marital estate is set at the time of the filing of the dissolution petition[.]
Helm v. Helm, 873 N.E.2d 83, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Here, the trial court’s decree increases the amount of the equalization payment to Wife with every premium payment and thus, in effect, increases the value of the marital estate and the share of the marital estate awarded to Wife beyond the date of the parties’ final separation.
Accordingly, we hold that portion of the decree violates Indiana Code section 31-15-7-4, and we reverse that part of the decree with respect to payment of the life insurance premiums. On remand, the trial court shall determine, either by agreement of the parties or by way of submissions or another hearing, the cost of the life insurance premiums in light of Husband’s life expectancy. With those factors determined, the trial court shall include the total projected cost of the life insurance policy2 in the marital estate as a security for the marital asset of Husband’s pension and recalculate the equalization payment to Wife so that Wife and Husband share the cost of this security equally. [Footnote omitted.]
….
Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.