132 N.E.3d 391
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Travis Edwards (veteran) and Valerie Edwards divorced by decree (Feb 23, 2010) awarding Valerie 50% of Edwards’ military pension accrued during the marriage.
- After retiring, Edwards elected combat-related special compensation (CRSC), which required waiving military retired pay; Valerie lost her 50% pension payments beginning Sept 2012 and received no replacement payments.
- Valerie filed a contempt motion; on Dec 18, 2015 the trial court found Edwards in contempt and ordered him to pay Valerie the pension arrears (judgment later entered for $44,338.75 after credits), citing Bandini v. Bandini.
- Edwards did not appeal the 2015 Order. In 2018 he moved under Trial Rule 60(B) to vacate based on Howell v. Howell (U.S. Supreme Court decision holding state courts cannot require veterans to indemnify former spouses for retirement waived in favor of disability benefits).
- The trial court (Jan 23, 2019) partially denied relief: it held the 2015 Order was binding and not void for lack of jurisdiction, but vacated the order prospectively effective May 3, 2018 (the date of Edwards’ motion), leaving the earlier money judgment intact.
- Edwards appealed the partial denial; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction and res judicata barred collateral attack of the unappealed 2015 Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by partially denying Edwards’ T.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the 2015 contempt/judgment order | Edwards: 2015 Order is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Howell, so it may be vacated | Trial court/Valerie: court had jurisdiction; 2015 Order was a final, unappealed judgment and is res judicata; Howell does not render prior orders void or retroactive | Court: No abuse of discretion. Trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction; res judicata bars collateral attack on final unappealed judgment; prospective relief only was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989) (federal law limits state courts’ ability to divide military retired pay affected by federal disability payments)
- Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. _ (2017) (state courts cannot order veterans to indemnify former spouses for retirement pay waived to receive service-related disability benefits)
- Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (held military spouse may not unilaterally reduce former spouse’s divorce-awarded share by waiving retirement pay for disability benefits)
- Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (a final, unappealed judgment remains preclusive even if based on a legal principle later overruled)