Riley, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Respondent, August Wohlt (Husband), appeals following the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Appellee-Petitioner, Christi Wohlt (Wife), on claims relating to the property settlement agreement resulting from their divorce proceedings.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and enter summary judgment for Husband.
ISSUES
Husband presents this court with six issues, which we consolidate, restate, and address as the following two issues:
(1) Whether Husband was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether certain cryptocurrencies were subject to division; and
(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Husband to pay expert witness and attorney’s fees.
….
Husband asserts that he was entitled to summary judgment because the PSA unambiguously awarded him the cryptocurrencies. Wife counters that the PSA could not have awarded Husband those assets because the cryptocurrencies had been forgotten by the parties and, thus, it could not have been the parties’ intention to divide those assets when executing the PSA.
….
Here, the PSA provided that “Husband shall retain all assets of the business, except for the following items: Wife’s Mac computer and printer, iPhone, iPad and laptop.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 59) (emphasis added). Wife did not identify any ambiguity in the wording of this provision in her initial petition seeking to divide the disputed assets, her Trial Rule 60 motion, in her response to Husband’s summary judgment pleadings, or on appeal. The term “all” is generally used to refer to the totality of what is being designated and is not a term that is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/all (last visited October 12, 2022) (defining “all” as “the whole amount, quantity, or extent of” and “every member or individual component of”). We find that this provision of the PSA unambiguously means that every asset owned by Echo would be awarded to Husband, apart from the five specifically listed items awarded to Wife.
We are aware that in Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, 849 N.E.2d 636, 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), this court concluded that a property settlement agreement which purported to settle the rights of the parties to real and personal property then owned by them was ambiguous because it was silent as to “the most significant marital assets,” namely, the marital residence and two businesses, which were acquired during the marriage. However, it cannot be said that the Bitcoin and ETC, the cryptocurrencies which existed at the time of the signing of the PSA which were indisputably forgotten by both parties, were among their “most significant” marital assets for purposes of the PSA that otherwise disposed of the parties’ marital residence, business, vehicles, investments, bank accounts, and personal property. Id. The fact that these assets, particularly the ETH currency, may have increased in value after the parties entered into the PSA does not inject ambiguity into the PSA itself. Dewbrew does not extend to the instant case for the additional reasons that the assets at issue in Dewbrew were specifically discussed by the parties prior to the entry of the settlement agreement, the wife in that case did not have her attorney review the finalized settlement agreement prior to signing it, and we remanded for recalculation of the division of the marital estate for other reasons apart from the omissions of the marital estate and the two businesses from the parties’ settlement agreement. Id. None of those factors are at issue here.
….
Because the PSA’s terms are unambiguous, we must apply the plain terms of the agreement, and we cannot credit Wife’s argument concerning what the parties might or might not have intended when entering into the PSA because that would entail looking beyond the four corners of the unambiguous contract. See Niccum, 734 N.E.2d at 639. There was no factual dispute that the Bitcoin and the ETC, from which the ETH forked, were assets owned by Echo. Therefore, we conclude that there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment to Husband on this issue.
….
In light of the express language of the PSA, we conclude that Husband was unambiguously awarded the cryptocurrencies at issue and that Husband owed Wife no duty to find and disclose the cryptocurrencies so as to support a claim of constructive fraud. Therefore, we reverse the denial of summary judgment and enter summary judgment in favor of Husband. [Footnote omitted.]
….
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we hold that Husband was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether the cryptocurrencies were subject to division. We further hold that Husband waived the majority of his claims regarding the trial court’s award of expert witness and attorney’s fees and that he has failed to demonstrate the merit of any preserved claims.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and summary judgment entered for Husband.
Crone, J. and Mathias, J. concur