George A. Buskirk v. Maureen Buskirk
86 N.E.3d 217
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- George and Maureen Buskirk married in 1972 and signed a postnuptial agreement on June 1, 1976 allocating separate property and containing mutual waivers/releases.
- Paragraph 2(A) of the Agreement recites that neither party contemplated dissolution of the marriage; Paragraph 2(B) recites mutual waivers/releases in the event of divorce.
- After the Agreement the parties kept separate finances, acquired no joint property or debt, and did not file joint tax returns.
- Wife filed for dissolution in 2015 and sought maintenance and attorney fees; Husband moved to enforce the postnuptial Agreement and designated an affidavit describing a reconciliation context for the Agreement.
- The trial court granted Wife’s summary judgment, holding Paragraph 2(A) showed no reconciliation consideration and declaring the Agreement unenforceable; the trial court awarded Wife maintenance and fees.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) factual issues existed about consideration (Husband’s affidavit may be considered to show reconciliation consideration and mutual releases), and (2) the Agreement evidences intent to waive rights in a divorce and is enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postnuptial agreement was supported by valid consideration | Paragraph 2(A) shows parties did not contemplate divorce; no reconciliation consideration, so Agreement lacks consideration | Parties entered Agreement to reconcile after a marital dispute; mutual waivers/releases and the agreement to keep property separate constitute consideration | Reversed: affidavit and contract language raise factual issues and mutual releases provide consideration; Agreement was supported by valid consideration |
| Whether parol/extrinsic evidence may be considered to show consideration | Husband’s affidavit is parol evidence and cannot vary the written terms | Parol evidence is admissible to show the nature of consideration and circumstances of execution | Reversed: parol evidence may be considered to show consideration and surrounding circumstances |
| Whether Paragraphs 2(A) and 2(B) conflict or render the Agreement ambiguous | 2(A)'s statement bars a reconciliation reading; 2(B) cannot supply necessary consideration | 2(A) and 2(B) are harmonious; 2(B) independently supplies consideration | Reversed: contract construed harmoniously; mutual releases and surrounding facts support enforceability |
| Whether the Agreement bars maintenance and attorney fees in dissolution | Agreement waives rights to each other’s property and thus forecloses maintenance/fees | Agreement’s waivers cover rights in divorce including maintenance/fees | Agreement manifests intent to waive rights on dissolution; enforceable waivers apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Hall, 27 N.E.3d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reconciliation agreements governed like antenuptial agreements; parol evidence may show nature of consideration)
- Flansburg v. Flansburg, 581 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (valid reconciliation agreement preserves marriage when agreement executed to avoid dissolution)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. 2005) (contract interpretation is a question of law; unambiguous terms given ordinary meaning)
- Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Grp., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009) (elements of contract and when contract existence is question of law)