Florence Speichert v. Carl Speichert (mem. dec.)
45A05-1610-DR-2451
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Carl and Florence Speichert married in 1997; each owned separate pre-marital assets and had children from prior marriages.
- In 2002 the parties executed a handwritten document listing separate property; they kept finances and assets largely separate thereafter.
- In March 2007 Carl expressed intent to separate, consulted counsel, and decided to stay and have a formal post-nuptial (Marital Property Agreement) drafted.
- On June 12, 2007 they executed a Marital Property Agreement memorializing that each would retain separate ownership of listed assets (Schedules A and B) and disclaim interest in the other’s property.
- Carl filed for dissolution in November 2015 and moved in March 2016 to enforce the 2007 Agreement; the trial court granted the motion and denied Wife’s motion to correct errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2007 Marital Property Agreement was supported by adequate consideration | Agreement lacked consideration because no sufficient exchange occurred | Agreement was a reconciliation agreement that extended the marriage and thus provided adequate consideration | Court held agreement was valid; reconciliation and continued marriage for nine years supplied consideration |
| Whether living together at execution invalidates a reconciliation/post-nuptial agreement | Parties were not sufficiently separated; therefore §31-15-2-17 requirements unmet | Separation is not required; focus is whether agreement was executed to preserve a marriage that would otherwise end | Court held cohabitation is irrelevant; statute does not require separation; enforceability depends on intent to preserve marriage |
| Whether trial court erred by admitting parol evidence when agreement was unambiguous | Admission of 2002 document and 2007 letter was improper under parol evidence rule | Documents were admissible to assess duress, meeting of minds, intent, and state of mind when validity was challenged | Court upheld admission as proper to evaluate validity and parties’ intent (and noted appellate waiver) |
| Whether Wife lacked complete financial disclosure so agreement should be invalidated | Wife claimed local rules required full disclosure and she did not receive it | Schedules A/B accurately reflected individual property and parties historically maintained separate assets; Wife did not identify omitted info | Court rejected claim; found disclosures sufficient and no showing of missing information |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Hall, 27 N.E.3d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reconciliation agreements that extend a marriage provide adequate consideration)
- Beaman v. Beaman, 844 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (trial court has discretion to admit evidence bearing on validity of post-nuptial agreements)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 659 N.E.2d 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (courts may consider conduct and circumstances outside an agreement to determine parties’ intent and validity)