71 N.E.3d 882
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Fazia Deen-Bacchus (Wife) and Harold M. Bacchus, Jr. (Husband) divorced; January 2011 dissolution order allocated marital property and explicitly "granted" three Prudential investment accounts to Wife as "her property."
- The January 2011 order also listed dollar valuations for each investment account but the asset entries named the accounts themselves as Wife's property without tying the grant to those valuations.
- Husband did not transfer the accounts to Wife as ordered; at a later hearing he claimed the 2011 order awarded Wife only the January 2011 monetary values of the accounts, not ownership of the accounts, and asserted entitlement to post-2011 growth.
- At the 2016 hearing Husband’s counsel suggested Husband had made post-2010 contributions, but there was no evidentiary support and counsel later admitted no contributions were made after the January 2011 order.
- The trial court’s February 2016 order held Husband in contempt for failing to transfer the accounts, directed payment to Wife of the January 2011 "marital estate value" ($455,405), and awarded Wife 1% per annum on that value ($18,491). The court justified awarding only the 2011 values in part because of alleged post-2011 contributions and market volatility.
- Wife appealed, challenging the trial court’s interpretation that the 2011 order conveyed only values rather than the accounts themselves.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the January 2011 order conveyed ownership of the specified investment accounts to Wife, or only their January 2011 dollar values | The 2011 order unambiguously granted the investment accounts themselves to Wife as her property | The 2011 order was ambiguous and should be read to award only the stated monetary values; post-2011 growth belongs to Husband | Court of Appeals: 2011 order unambiguously granted the accounts themselves to Wife; trial court erred by awarding only the 2011 values |
| Whether Husband made post-2011 contributions to the accounts that would justify limiting Wife to 2011 values | N/A (Wife disputed any valid basis for limiting transfer) | Husband asserted he made additional contributions and that amounts in excess of 2011 values belonged to him | Court: finding that Husband made post-2011 contributions was clear error; record contains no evidence and counsel admitted none were made |
| Whether the trial court’s 1% per annum payment to Wife (as compensation for delay) cured any prejudice from awarding only 2011 values | The 1% award did not restore Wife to the position she would have been in had the accounts been transferred; it improperly rewarded Husband’s noncompliance | Trial court implied the 1% was appropriate to compensate delay | Court: 1% payment insufficient and cannot justify misreading the 2011 order; remand for instruction to transfer the accounts |
| Whether Husband’s late contention of ambiguity is a timely basis to reinterpret the 2011 judgment | The ambiguity argument was not timely and was barred because Husband did not raise it in a motion to correct error or on prior appeal | Husband raised ambiguity belatedly at enforcement hearing | Court: Husband’s untimely ambiguity argument should have been rejected as res judicata; de novo review confirms no ambiguity |
Key Cases Cited
- Flynn v. Barker, 450 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (judgments construed like contracts; ambiguous if two reasonable interpretations exist)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz, 56 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. 2016) (contracts and judgments interpreted de novo)
- Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, Am. Legion Corp., 4 N.E.3d 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (court of appeals may independently interpret judicial records)
- R.W.M. v. A.W.M., 926 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (untimely arguments regarding judgment ambiguity are barred by res judicata)
- Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co. v. Harlan, 504 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (trial courts have authority to amend judgments only within time for motions to correct error)
- Fischer v. Heymann, 12 N.E.3d 867 (Ind. 2014) (appellate review: findings of fact reviewed for clear error)
- Krampen v. Krampen, 997 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (attorney admissions can be treated as judicial admissions binding on client)