In Re the Marriage of: Courtney Carr v. Beth E. Carr
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 15
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Courtney (Husband) and Beth Carr (Wife) married in 1997; Husband filed for dissolution in 2013 and trial occurred in 2015.
- Husband earned a military pension (vested during the marriage) and a private pension from Rock Tenn; both parties retained an expert to value retirement benefits.
- Husband elected a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for Wife: expert valued the SBP at $226,443.86 and total military pension (post‑election) at roughly $1.2 million. 3,078 of 6,103 pension points accrued during the marriage (≈50% by coverture).
- Trial court applied the coverture formula to both pensions and awarded Wife half of the coverture share (i.e., half of the marital portion), but declined to count the SBP as a marital asset, reasoning its payout was speculative.
- Trial court adopted a 60/40 overall division in Wife’s favor (not an exact split), resulting in Wife receiving about $804,888 of the $1,349,633 marital estate (excluding SBP). Husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SBP should be included in the marital pot as a marital asset | Parties stipulated to SBP value and intended it be treated as marital property; trial court erred by excluding it | SBP had not vested to Wife and its payment is contingent on Husband’s death, so it should not be included | Court held SBP is a marital asset; trial court erred by excluding it and must count its stipulated value in the marital pot |
| Whether parties’ statements at trial constituted a binding stipulation to treat the SBP as marital property | Husband contends the parties’ filings and trial colloquy amounted to a stipulation to treat the SBP as marital property | Wife argues trial statements were not a clear, binding stipulation and SBP still is not marital property absent vesting to her | Court found no unambiguous binding stipulation in the record but noted both parties listed and expected the SBP to be counted; outcome: regardless of stipulation, SBP must be included as marital asset |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Leonard, 877 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (recognizing survivor benefit annuities as marital assets)
- Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining modern treatment of pensions as marital assets despite contingent payment timing)
- Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 2010) (vesting of the pension‑earner’s right is necessary for a right to be marital property)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (omission of marital assets requires remand to recalculate property division)
Conclusion: Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; SBP must be added to the marital pot. On remand the trial court must either justify a 65/35 split with findings or reallocate assets to achieve the previously‑adopted 60/40 split.