Parviz Jahangirizadeh v. Fatemeh Pazouki
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 165
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Pazouki filed for dissolution of marriage in 2007; final decree entered May 23, 2008, requiring Jahangirizadeh to pay an equalization payment for property division.
- Pazouki had filed a financial declaration before the final hearing listing assets; 35 days after the decree she opened a business account with $50,000.
- In 2014 Jahangirizadeh moved to set aside the dissolution decree under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(3) alleging Pazouki nondisclosed assets and fraud.
- The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely (filed more than one year after the decree) and denied motions to reconsider and correct error; dismissal was with prejudice.
- Jahangirizadeh pointed to a 2014 California order finding Pazouki not credible in unrelated litigation; he argued this supported fraud on the court or an independent fraud action.
- The trial court and appellate court evaluated whether the allegations could support relief under Rule 60(B)(3), an independent action for fraud, or fraud on the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly refused to set aside the dissolution decree for alleged fraud | Jahangirizadeh: Pazouki hid marital assets (e.g., $50,000 deposit) and lied; this influenced the property division and warrants setting aside the decree | Pazouki: Motion was untimely under Trial Rule 60(B)(3); allegations amount to ordinary nondisclosure, not fraud on the court or basis for an independent fraud action | Affirmed — allegations constitute ordinary fraud subject to Rule 60(B)(3)’s one-year limit; no showing of fraud on the court or circumstances justifying an independent action, so motion barred as untimely |
| Whether the motion could be treated as an independent action for fraud or fraud on the court (to avoid the one-year limit) | Jahangirizadeh: New evidence of Pazouki’s untruthfulness (California order) supports independent action or fraud on the court | Pazouki: Allegations are nondisclosure/ordinary fraud; no egregious conduct, no attorney involvement, and no attack on judicial integrity | Held — allegations are ordinary nondisclosure/perjury risk; not the type of egregious, court-directed fraud required for fraud on the court or an independent action; Beggerly and federal authority bar expansion of independent-fraud remedy |
| Whether dismissal of the motion (rather than denial) required leave to amend under Trial Rule 12(B) | Jahangirizadeh: Dismissal triggered Trial Rule 12(B)’s automatic right to amend a pleading | Pazouki: Trial Rule 12(B) applies to pleadings, not motions; no authority shows the amendment right applies to motions to set aside | Held — Rule 12(B)’s amendment provision applies only to pleadings; court need not allow amendment of a motion dismissed under these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisner v. Laney, 984 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for Trial Rule 60 motions)
- In re Adoption of C.B.M., 992 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. 2013) (de novo review where decision is based solely on paper record)
- Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. 2002) (adopting federal analysis distinguishing 60(b)(3) motions, independent fraud actions, and fraud on the court)
- United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2002) (explaining fraud on the court requires egregious conduct that directly attacks judicial process)
- United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) (failure to disclose information ordinarily falls under Rule 60(b)(3); independent action for fraud is narrow)
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (example of fraud on the court warranting relief where public interest and judicial integrity were implicated)