In re the Marriage of: Milana Staletovich Riggs v. Leon O. Riggs (mem. dec.)
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 252
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Milana Riggs filed for dissolution of marriage in June 2015; she and Leon Riggs had separated in 1969 and had no children.
- Leon suffered dementia by 2010 and was incompetent; the trial court appointed his daughter, Cynthia Hill, as guardian ad litem.
- Leon died December 4, 2015, before any decree or substantive hearings; his assets were placed in a trust and the probate estate reported zero value.
- Milana moved to substitute Hill as party; the guardian ad litem moved to dismiss the dissolution for lack of jurisdiction based on Leon’s death.
- The trial court dismissed the dissolution action, relying on Johnson v. Johnson and the general common-law rule that a dissolution action terminates on the death of a party.
- Milana appealed, arguing the court should apply equitable considerations (as in Beard) to permit continuation so she could obtain a fair share of marital property rather than being limited to a zero-valued probate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court lose jurisdiction over the dissolution when Leon died before a decree? | Riggs: equity permits an exception; dismissal denies her a just share because probate estate is effectively zero. | Guardian ad litem/Hill: death terminates dissolution proceedings under the Termination Rule; jurisdiction is lost. | Court: Dismissal affirmed; death terminated the dissolution and court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Are there exceptions permitting continuation of a dissolution after a party’s death? | Riggs: Beard and other cases show equitable exceptions beyond the narrow list; court should craft an exception here. | Respondent: Only narrow, established exceptions apply; facts do not fit any exception (no decree, no bifurcation). | Court: Only the recognized narrow exceptions (and Beard’s limited bifurcation-based exception) apply; none fit these facts. |
| Should public policy (survival statute) allow dissolution to proceed post-death? | Riggs: Survival statute and equities favor survival of the action to reach marital assets. | Respondent: Legislature did not intend dissolution courts to retain jurisdiction after death to resolve property; property division is part of final decree. | Court: Public policy and the survival statute do not override common-law Termination Rule here. |
| Was substitution of Leon’s representative appropriate to preserve the action? | Riggs: Substitution (personal representative/trustee) would allow resolution of property distribution. | Respondent: Substitution does not cure the jurisdictional defect created by death. | Court: Denied as moot after dismissal; substitution would not avoid loss of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Smith v. Delaware Cty. Superior Court, 442 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 1982) (allowed post-decree modification where deceased spouse fraudulently underreported assets)
- State ex rel. Paxton v. Porter Superior Court, 467 N.E.2d 1205 (Ind. 1984) (allowed recovery of attorney fees related to preparing the divorce despite death)
- Lizak v. Schultz, 496 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1986) (permitted dissolution court to reduce child-support arrearages to judgment after decree entry)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 653 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (held dissolution proceedings terminate on a party’s death where no exception applies)
- Beard v. Beard, 758 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (recognized a limited exception where parties agreed to bifurcate and a decree dissolving the marriage was entered in phase one)
- Murdock v. Estate of Murdock, 935 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discussed Termination Rule and exceptions)
- Boyer v. Smith, 42 N.E.3d 505 (Ind. 2015) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)