Celene I. Bock v. Dale F. Bock
116 N.E.3d 1124
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Celene Bock (Wife) and Dale Bock (Husband) married in 1985 and separated in 2015; dissolution proceedings followed.
- Husband retired from the Lake County Sheriff’s Department in 2005, had accrued 10 years of service pre-marriage, and began pension disbursements in 2005.
- Upon retirement Husband elected a 100% Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for Wife; the election was irrevocable and reduced his monthly benefit.
- Wife sought to exclude her SBP interest from the marital estate and requested 58% of the estate; Husband sought to exclude his pre-coverture property (including pre-marriage portion of the pension).
- The trial court valued Husband’s pension at $460,211.60, valued Wife’s SBP at $83,401, included the SBP in the marital pot, and divided the marital estate equally (50/50).
- Wife appealed, arguing (1) the SBP should be excluded as speculative/defeasible, (2) the SBP valuation was erroneous, and (3) the equal division was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife’s SBP interest must be included in the marital estate | SBP is speculative/defeasible (may be extinguished if Wife predeceases Husband) and thus should be excluded | SBP is a vested product of Husband’s pension election and therefore a marital asset subject to division | Included: SBP is marital property where pension rights vested during marriage and statute/case law treat pension-related interests as marital assets |
| Whether the trial court erred in valuing Wife’s SBP at $83,401 | Valuation too high given speculative nature and limited expected years of payout | Expert valuation using life tables, plan terms, and Treasury discount rates is competent evidence | No clear error: court properly considered restriction and relied on qualified expert evidence |
| Whether the trial court should have adjusted division away from equal split | Wife sought 58% due to lower earnings and economic disparity | Husband asked for pre-marriage property to be excluded and pension pre-coverture portion returned to him | No abuse of discretion: court found neither party rebutted statutory presumption of equal division given evidence and 30-year marriage |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding the marital residence to Husband | (implicit) unfair because Wife received future interest versus Husband immediate asset | Trial court considered evidence and chose equal division overall | Court acted within discretion; affirmed equal division and property awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Falatovics v. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Indiana’s "one pot" rule requires inclusion of vested interests in the marital estate)
- Harrison v. Harrison, 88 N.E.3d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (discusses remoteness/defeasance in excluding trust interests from marital pot)
- Carr v. Carr, 49 N.E.3d 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (pension-earner’s vested pension makes SBP includable as marital property)
- Leonard v. Leonard, 877 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (present net value of pensions and survivor benefits are marital assets subject to division)
- Alexander v. Alexander, 927 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (a valuation submitted by a party can constitute competent evidence to support the trial court’s valuation)