Horner v. Carter
969 N.E.2d 111
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dennis Horner and Marcia Carter divorced in 2005 and reached a mediated settlement incorporated into the dissolution decree.
- The settlement divided Real Estate, Other Property, Maintenance/Support, and Further Agreements, including a $550 monthly housing payment to Wife and a life estate in a new residence for her.
- Husband later argued the housing payments were misdrafted and were maintenance that would terminate upon Wife’s remarriage.
- Wife remarried in 2007, and the parties filed an agreed entry terminating Husband’s maintenance obligation, but the housing payment obligation continued.
- Husband sought modification in 2011, claiming a drafting mistake and asked to admit mediation communications as extrinsic evidence; the trial court excluded them.
- The trial court later determined the housing payments were for a property settlement, not maintenance, and Horner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of mediation communications to prove mistake | Horner argues extrinsic evidence, including mediation communications, shows drafting mistake. | Carter contends Rule 2.11/Rule 408 prohibit such evidence to prove maintenance elements. | Mediation communications may be admitted to show contract mistake; error harmless. |
| Whether housing payments are maintenance or property settlement | Horner contends payments are maintenance terminated by remarriage. | Carter contends payments are property settlement, not maintenance. | Payments are a property settlement, not maintenance. |
| Impact of Wife’s remarriage on the agreement | Remarriage should terminate maintenance, affecting the housing obligation if misdrafted as maintenance. | Remarriage does not alter the property settlement characterization of the housing payments. | Remarriage did not convert housing payments into maintenance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernel v. Bernel, 930 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. App. 2010) (use of extrinsic evidence when contract ambiguous; mediation not per se excluded)
- Deel v. Deel, 909 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (interpretation of settlement agreements; factors distinguishing maintenance vs. property settlement)
- Gast v. Hall, 858 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (mediation communications admissible for purposes other than proving liability)