Judith M. Edwards (n/k/a Judith Klemos) v. Allen O. Edwards, and D. Juatrice Edwards, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Allen O. Edwards
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 323
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.2017Background
- Judith and Allen Edwards entered an agreed dissolution decree (Jan. 4, 2012) awarding Judith one-half of Allen’s pension/retirement benefits for the 20‑year coverture period and any appreciation as of a QDRO effective date.
- The decree did not designate who would prepare QDROs; Allen’s counsel attempted a QDRO for Valic but it was rejected and no distribution occurred.
- Nearly four years passed without Judith receiving the funds; she filed emergency motions in May 2016 after learning Allen was terminally ill and that beneficiary designations and record issues threatened her award.
- The dissolution court (May 24, 2016) issued a restraining order protecting the retirement assets, directed Judith’s attorney to prepare QDROs (to be paid from Allen’s assets), and expressly reserved jurisdiction to divide PERF and other retirement accounts.
- Allen died May 25, 2016. His fiancée/surviving spouse, Juatrice, intervened and asked the court to vacate the hearing, lift the restraining order, and determined the dissolution court no longer had jurisdiction over distribution after his death.
- The dissolution court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the restraining order; Judith appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Judith) | Defendant's Argument (Juatrice) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dissolution court retained jurisdiction after Allen’s death to enforce and complete distribution of pension/retirement benefits awarded in the final decree | Court retained continuing jurisdiction and had expressly reserved it; it could complete QDROs, protect assets, and clarify awards including appreciation/depreciation or address fraud | Death terminated dissolution-court jurisdiction over property distribution; claims now belong to Allen’s estate and probate court | Court of Appeals held the dissolution court retained jurisdiction to complete implementation of the decree (including preparing QDROs, protecting assets, and addressing related fraud/clarification) and erred in dismissing the restraining order |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Smith v. Delaware Cty. Superior Court, 442 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 1982) (general rule: dissolution proceedings terminate on death of a party)
- Dodd v. Estate of Yanan, 625 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. 1993) (limits on collateral attacks on final dissolution decrees; post‑dissolution claims against estate governed by modification/fraud procedures)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 653 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (trial court should not retain jurisdiction to resolve property matters after death when no final determination was made before death)
- Fackler v. Powell, 839 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005) (dissolution court has continuing jurisdiction to interpret and clarify its prior orders to effectuate dissolution)
- Beard v. Beard, 758 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (death after dissolution but before property disposition does not necessarily divest court of jurisdiction to conclude property division)
- Behme v. Behme, 519 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (dissolution court has power to interpret its own decree as necessary to effectuate dissolution)
- Board of Trustees of Indiana Pub. Employees Retirement Fund v. Grannan, 578 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (recognizing particular restrictions applicable to division of PERF benefits)