Brad Barton v. Alexandra Barton
47 N.E.3d 368
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Brad Barton (Husband) and Alexandra Barton (Wife) married in 2005; no children. Husband filed for dissolution in 2011; final hearing occurred October 2, 2014; decree entered October 31, 2014.
- The dissolution court awarded Wife incapacity spousal maintenance ($1,500/month), ordered Husband to secure COBRA (later rescinded by Wife), and awarded Wife $24,364.18 in attorney’s fees based on discovery noncompliance, delays, and earning disparity.
- Marital property consisted primarily of Husband’s UPS pension and a Teamsters deferred tax savings plan; the court divided those retirement assets using language that invoked the coverture fraction but appears to have awarded Wife the entire coverture portion rather than one-half.
- Husband timely appealed the decree and sought a stay of certain provisions; he later pursued a Trial Rule 60(B) motion alleging fraud/misrepresentation by Wife (primarily that she misrepresented her intent to remarry and her financial resources).
- The trial court denied Husband’s 60(B) motion after finding Wife’s testimony credible and that SSDI was her only income at dissolution. This Court consolidated Husband’s appeal of the dissolution decree and the denial of 60(B) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of T.R. 60(B) relief for alleged fraud/misrepresentation was an abuse of discretion | Wife misrepresented her intent to remarry and her financial support from her boyfriend, which would have changed the award of incapacity maintenance | Wife’s testimony was truthful as to her intent and SSDI was her only income at dissolution; future marriage/changed intent cannot be fraud basis | Denial affirmed: Husband failed to prove material misrepresentation under 60(B)(3) |
| Whether award of incapacity spousal maintenance was an abuse of discretion | Award inappropriate because Wife had other resources and/or ability to work; Husband cannot afford the award | Wife is physically incapacitated (stiff person’s syndrome), approved for SSDI, and her ability to support herself is materially affected; court considered Husband’s income | Award affirmed: record supports incapacity finding and consideration of Husband’s ability to pay |
| Whether attorney’s fees award ($24,364.18) was an abuse of discretion | Fees excessive; Wife allegedly also caused delays; some fees purportedly paid by third party (gifts) | Husband’s discovery failures, attorney changes, and delays increased Wife’s litigation costs; large disparity in incomes justifies full award | Award affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees given misconduct and financial disparity |
| Whether valuation and division of Husband’s pension and deferred tax savings plan were erroneous | Court misapplied coverture fraction: appears to have awarded Wife entire coverture portion and failed to include full present values in marital pot | (Implicit) court used coverture fraction and intended division as described | Reversed in part and remanded: court must include full present values in marital pot, apply coverture fraction to determine divisible portion, then divide that portion equally or explain deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (limits Trial Rule 60(B) to procedural/equitable grounds rather than merits)
- Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for 60(B) rulings)
- Cannon v. Cannon, 758 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. 2001) (incapacity finding normally requires awarding incapacity maintenance absent extenuating circumstances)
- Clokey v. Bosley Clokey, 956 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reversing spousal maintenance awards)
- Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (elements for fraud/misrepresentation under Trial Rule 60(B)(3))
- Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (one-pot theory; include all assets in marital estate before division)
- In re Marriage of Fisher, 24 N.E.3d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (coverture-fraction explanation for dividing pension benefits)
- Hardin v. Hardin, 964 N.E.2d 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (coverture-fraction methodology)