ILNews

COA reverses decree award of military benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a portion of a divorce decree awarding some of the husband's military benefits and housing allowance to his wife because the separation agreement excluded granting the wife any rights to them.
 
In Timothy D. Wolshire v. Sharon M. Wolshire, No. 16A05-0812-CV-722, Timothy Wolshire appealed the divorce decree which added language to the provision of the parties' separation agreement governing the division of proceeds from the sale of the marital home; awarded Sharon a portion of his military benefits; and gave her a portion of Timothy's military housing allowance he received after the two separated.

The Wolshires filed for legal separation in September 2005; Sharon had an attorney and Timothy appeared pro se. They entered into a separation agreement awarding the marital home to Sharon and the amount Timothy would get if she sold the home. Under "Other Property," the provision stated except for anything otherwise specifically provided for in the separation agreement, Sharon or Timothy would retain separate and exclusive property of anything they already owned or arising out of the marital relationship.

After they separated, but before they officially divorced, Timothy began serving full time in the National Guard and received a basic allowance for housing in March 2006. In September 2007, he began sending the allowance to Sharon based on the advice of a military attorney. But because of the separation agreement, he wasn't legally required to send it.

In September 2008, the trial court issued its decree of dissolution and stuck to the separation agreement except it added language regarding the sale of the marital home that made Timothy responsible for repair and replacement of existing structures upon sale of the home. The trial court also awarded Sharon four months of housing allowance for a total of $5,648 and determined she'd be eligible for a portion of Timothy's military retirement benefits.

The Court of Appeals reversed the disputed portions of the divorce decree because the trial court should have followed the language in the separation agreement instead of adding in new language regarding the marital home or benefits.

When the parties entered into the agreement, there was no mention of Timothy's military benefits. Sharon testified that the benefits just didn't come up when they were putting together the agreement, but a mere oversight doesn't allow the trial court to grant her the benefits when the separation agreement doesn't specify, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

In regards to Timothy's basic allowance for housing, those payments fall under the "Other Property" provision of the separation agreement and should remain only his property. Sharon's argument that the trial court should have dealt with the allowance because the agreement doesn't mention them is problematic because it would render the "Other Property" provision meaningless, the judge wrote. Because the allowance and benefits weren't specifically mentioned in the separation agreement, and because they were issued to Timothy, the trial court erred in awarding a portion of them to Sharon.

The parties lost any right they might have in later-acquired property when they entered into the separation agreement, and that's a risk Sharon took by signing the agreement, wrote Judge Riley. The case is remanded with instructions to amend the dissolution decree in accordance with the opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT