Evans v. Evans
946 N.E.2d 1200
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dissolution decree (Mar. 7, 2007) split marital assets equally; Peggy received $263,255 in listed assets; George to pay Peggy $108,675 via QDRO from his Daimler Chrysler pension over ten years at 5% simple interest.
- QDRO drafted but denied by Benefit Express in 2007 for ERISA/IRC §414(p) noncompliance; amended QDRO prepared and denied again in 2008 for termination on Peggy's death.
- Peggy dies (Aug. 17, 2009); Peggy's estate seeks substitution of party (Nov. 5, 2009) and payment of $108,675 plus interest.
- Court substitutes Michael as personal representative (Nov. 9, 2009) and later orders payment or alternative plan via motion to compel (May 27, 2010).
- Trial court treated motion as TR 60(B)(8) relief from judgment, finding the QDRO could not be implemented and directing an alternate payment plan.
- George objects; trial court denies correction of error (July 14, 2010); this appeal follows challenging the TR 60(B)(8) treatment and the alternate payment plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion re treating motion as TR 60(B)(8)? | Evans argues improper use of 60(B)(8) to fix legal error. | Michael argues relief and amendment necessary to enforce decree. | No abuse; motion properly recast as 60(B)(8) relief. |
| Was the alternate payment plan during 60(B)(8) proper? | Estate contends plan preserves finality and adheres to decree force. | Dissenting view says plan overstepped and should reflect QDRO that Peggy would receive through the QDRO itself. | Affirmed: court could order alternate payment plan; no error in this approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Case v. Case, 794 N.E.2d 514 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (dissolution court may clarify rather than modify to reflect original meaning)
- Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (modification under 60(B)(8) to fix ERISA-incompatible QDRO)
- Mitchell v. Stevenson, 677 N.E.2d 551 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (finality of dissolution judgments; continuing jurisdiction to interpret decree)
- Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d 458 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (finality of property division; policy favoring finality)
- Fackler v. Powell, 839 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (dissolution); interpretation of court's powers to effectuate dissolution)
- Bitner v. Hull, 695 N.E.2d 181 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998) (courts may entertain enforcement actions to determine satisfaction of judgments)
- Everette v. Everette, 841 N.E.2d 210 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (non-endorsement and alternative mechanisms to balance marital estate)
- In re Marriage of Jones, 389 N.E.2d 338 (Ind.App. 1979) (merits of relief where legal mistake addressed by 60(B))