Elizabeth (Newman) Lewis v. David Newman - 2/24/17

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Friday  February 24, 2017 
12:00 PM  EST

12 p.m. Culver, Indiana. When the marriage of David Newman and Elizabeth Newman (now Lewis) was dissolved in 2008, the trial court incorporated the parties’ property settlement agreement which provided, in relevant part, that David would pay spousal maintenance in a fixed amount each month to Elizabeth until Elizabeth either remarries or becomes eligible to receive payments from David’s retirement account, whichever occurs first.  The agreement also provided that in addition to the $1,000.00 per month spousal maintenance payment, Elizabeth was entitled to 25% of the net profits of David’s book royalties.  In 2016, David filed a motion to terminate his spousal maintenance obligation, alleging Elizabeth had remarried.  Elizabeth agreed the $1,000 monthly payment should be terminated, but disagreed the book royalty payments constituted spousal maintenance that should also be terminated.  The trial court first issued an order terminating David’s $1,000 monthly obligation but ordering the book royalty payments to continue.  David filed a motion to correct error following which the trial court issued a corrected order also terminating the book royalty payments.  Elizabeth now appeals, arguing the trial court improperly modified the parties’ property settlement agreement when it determined the book royalties were to be considered spousal maintenance rather than a distinct category of property.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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!!

  3. @ 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.

  4. If it were your child that died maybe you'd be more understanding. Most of us don't have graves to visit. My son was killed on a state road and I will be putting up a memorial where he died. It gives us a sense of peace to be at the location he took his last breath. Some people should be more understanding of that.

  5. Can we please take notice of the connection between the declining state of families across the United States and the RISE OF CPS INVOLVEMENT??? They call themselves "advocates" for "children's rights", however, statistics show those children whom are taken from, even NEGLIGENT homes are LESS likely to become successful, independent adults!!! Not to mention the undeniable lack of respect and lack of responsibility of the children being raised today vs the way we were raised 20 years ago, when families still existed. I was born in 1981 and I didn't even ever hear the term "CPS", in fact, I didn't even know they existed until about ten years ago... Now our children have disagreements between friends and they actually THREATEN EACH OTHER WITH, "I'll call CPS" or "I'll have [my parent] (usually singular) call CPS"!!!! And the truth is, no parent is perfect and we all have flaws and make mistakes, but it is RIGHTFULLY OURS - BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION - to be imperfect. Let's take a good look at what kind of parenting those that are stealing our children are doing, what kind of adults are they producing? WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILY AND THAT CHILD'S SUCCESS - or otherwise - AS AN ADULT.....