Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl
15 N.E.3d 1006
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Barbara and Michael Pohl married in 1991; they have a child M.P. born 1995.
- Michael became disabled in 1996; his SSDI is his primary income.
- They divorced in 2009; their settlement agreement was approved and incorporated but initially did not provide spousal maintenance.
- May 2009 Addendum to the Agreement required Barbara to pay Michael $4,000 per month starting June 2013, until further order or agreement.
- Barbara moved to modify the maintenance from $4,000 to $1,000 in October 2012, citing changed circumstances; trial court denied.
- Indiana Supreme Court held the Addendum is modifiable by its terms; remanded to apply substantial and continuing change in circumstances standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Addendum modifiable despite the parties' settlement? | Pohl: agreement reserved modifiability via 'further order of the court'. | Pohl: the agreement is non-modifiable absent fraud/duress. | Yes; the Addendum is modifiable per its terms. |
| What standard governs modification of an agreed maintenance award? | Pohl seeks modification under substantial and continuing change in circumstances. | Pohl would require fraud/duress; not the proper standard. | Apply the 'substantial and continuing change in circumstances' standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Voigt v. Voigt, 670 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1996) (reserved question whether maintenance from a settlement can be modified if grounded in incapacity, etc.)
- Haville v. Haville, 825 N.E.2d 375 (Ind. 2005) (discusses finality/freedom-of-contract concerns in modification of maintenance.)
- Zan v. Zan, 820 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (analyzed rehabilitative maintenance and Voigt’s reserved question; varied reasoning among judges.)
- Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, 849 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (discussed sequencing of rehabilitative vs. other maintenance in long-term awards.)
- Cox v. Cox, 833 N.E.2d 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (silence on nature of maintenance can indicate non-statutory/ non-modifiable; extrinsic evidence matters.)
- Temple v. Temple, 328 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. App. 1975) (discusses the subjective nature of spousal maintenance determinations.)