In Re the Marriage of: Teasha J. Harris v. Anthony J. Harris
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 385
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Husband and Wife married in 1995; one child born 1996. Wife moved to Indiana in 2005 and filed for dissolution in Marion County in 2008. Husband was a servicemember then stationed overseas.
- Trial court entered a 2009 dissolution decree (Wife custody, child support, spousal allowance, vehicle award, and 32% of Husband's military pension to Wife). Husband moved to correct error claiming lack of personal jurisdiction.
- This Court (2010) upheld the divorce itself as an in rem matter but held that the trial court lacked in personam jurisdiction over Husband for distribution of marital property, child support, spousal allowance, and military retirement, and reversed those portions.
- In 2011 Husband and Wife filed an agreed entry modifying custody/support; same day Wife filed a verified petition for equitable division and spousal maintenance (no record ruling on that petition).
- In 2014 the trial court resolved post-appeal motions, declined to treat Husband's military pension as a marital asset (pension not vested until Nov. 19, 2011), and found Husband had submitted to jurisdiction only as to custody/support; Wife moved to correct error and appealed after denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Husband for property/spousal claims | Wife: Husband consented to Indiana jurisdiction by the 2011 agreed entry; consent covers all matters necessary to dispose of the dissolution (including property). | Husband: Earlier appellate decision showed court lacked in personam jurisdiction; his consent was limited to custody/support matters. | Reversed trial court: Husband’s 2011 agreed entry constituted consent to the court’s jurisdiction for matters necessary to dispose of the dissolution; Wife may re-petition for equitable division and spousal maintenance. |
| Military pension — whether it is a marital asset | Wife: Federal 10 U.S.C. §1408 and prior cases permit treating military retirement as divisible; Wife argued pension should be divisible (claimed vesting by later orders). | Husband: Pension did not vest until Nov. 19, 2011 (after dissolution on Feb. 2, 2009); therefore not a marital asset subject to division. | Affirmed trial court: pension was not vested at time of dissolution and thus not part of the marital pot; 2014 orders did not change the 2009 dissolution date. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (due-process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability/contacts test for jurisdiction)
- Harris v. Harris, 922 N.E.2d 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (prior appellate decision upholding in rem divorce but vacating in personam orders)
- Dowden v. Allman, 696 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (pension must be vested to be included in marital pot)
- Plese v. Plese, 257 N.E.2d 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1970) (trial court's duty to adjudicate property rights in divorce)
- Maust v. Estate of Bair, 859 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (estoppel from challenging jurisdiction after seeking benefits of court's jurisdiction)