Background

• Linda filed for dissolution; final Decree, February 10, 2010, awarded the marital real estate to Linda and divided the second mortgage debt equally.
• Second mortgage balance was approximately $43,304 at dissolution; Decree required each party to pay half and Linda to receive monthly payment via assignment/QDRO.
• Gary filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy eight days after the Decree; bankruptcy stay stayed actions on the second mortgage obligation.
• Linda sought relief from stay for clarification; bankruptcy court found Decree unclear on balance, interest rate, duration, and QDRO viability.
• Linda petitioned the trial court to clarify Decree; trial court issued November 23, 2010 order clarifying the debt structure and security intended to Linda.
• Gary appeals, arguing the Order modified the Decree; Linda argues it clarified ambiguities without changing property division.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Beike v. Beike, 805 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (finality of property division generally favored; exceptions for clarification)
• Beaman v. Beaman, 844 N.E.2d 525 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (clarification of decree consistent with intent, not modification)
• Fackler v. Powell, 839 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. 2005) (dissolution court may interpret/enforce decree; clarify upon uncertainty)
• Strohmier v. Strohmier, 839 N.E.2d 234 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (distinguishable: modification after discharge vs. clarification of obligations)
• Niccum v. Niccum, 734 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (contract interpretation governs settlement agreements)
• Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d 458 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (finality of property division and context for post-decree action)
• Thomas v. Thomas, 577 N.E.2d 216 (Ind.1991) (interpretation/enforcement of decree; dissolution court retains some clarity powers)