ILNews

Ex-wife not entitled to half of pension earned after divorce

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday that a trial court did not impermissibly modify a property settlement agreement or decree, but simply clarified that the intent of the parties was to divide the marital property acquired during the marriage and before the final date of separation.

Judith Lund Pherson sought half of the pension her ex-husband Michael Lund earned from his employer in the 18 ½ years after the two divorced. At the time of their divorce in 1991, the two agreed that Pherson would be entitled to half of Lund’s Tier II benefits from his railroad employer. When he retired after 42 years of service, Pherson began receiving half of the benefits. But Lund sought clarification from the court whether his ex-wife could claim a portion of the retirement funds he earned after their divorce.

The trial court clarified that the pension benefits earned in those 18 ½ years didn’t exist at the time of the divorce as a marital asset.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in Judith (Lund) Pherson v. Michael Lund, 52A04-1304-DR-180.

“It is true that Indiana law ‘encourages’ divorcing spouses to reach agreements and the spouses ‘have more flexibility in crafting their own property settlement agreements than do divorce courts,’” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote, citing Wilson v. Wilson, 716 N.E.2d 486, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Parties may agree to provisions which a trial court has no statutory authority to order. Husband and Wife in this case could have agreed to divert Husband’s after-acquired funds to Wife as alimony or maintenance.  However, the Agreement is devoid of any language suggesting this intent. We agree with the trial court that the Agreement was not intended to divide the future earnings of one spouse. Its sole objective was to divide property acquired before the date of final separation.”

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT