ILNews

Court ordered to recalculate division of pension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered the lower court to take another look at the division of a husband’s pension, finding the court used the wrong number in its decision.

In Robert Hardin v. Carlotta Hardin, No. 18A05-1105-DR-301, Robert and Carlotta Hardin were married, divorced, and then remarried in 1993. Robert Hardin retired in 2000 from General Motors. The pair separated in June 2010. The trial court awarded Carlotta Hardin $317 a month from Robert Hardin’s pension. The court based the number in part on the 17 years the two were married.

But the trial court should have used seven years as the applicable figure since Robert Hardin stopped accruing in 2000, 10 years before they separated, the COA held. The trial court’s order results in Carlotta Hardin receiving more than three times the amount the trial court intended she receive, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to recalculate the husband’s and wife’s portions of the combined monthly benefits.

The judges upheld the award of the entire survivor’s benefit to Carlotta Hardin, but found the trial court erred in determining that the cost of the survivor’s benefit is included in amount payable.

“By deducting the cost of the survivor’s benefit before the applying the coverture fraction, Wife is not paying the entire cost of the survivor’s benefit. Rather, Wife’s payment of the cost of the survivor’s benefit must be taken out of her share after the trial court uses the coverture fraction to determine Wife’s share of the monthly payments,” she wrote.

This issue was also remanded for the trial court to re-divide the pension consistent 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT