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.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So the prosecutor made an error and the defendants get a full remedy. Just one short paragraph to undo the harm of the erroneous prosecution. Wow. Just wow.

  2. Wake up!!!! Lawyers are useless!! it makes no difference in any way to speak about what is important!! Just dont tell your plans to the "SELFRIGHTEOUS ARROGANT JERKS!! WHO THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN ANOTHER MAN/WOMAN!!!!!!

  3. Looks like you dont understand Democracy, Civilized Society does not cut a thiefs hands off, becouse now he cant steal or write or feed himself or learn !!! You deserve to be over punished, Many men are mistreated hurt in many ways before a breaking point happens! grow up !!!

  4. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  5. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"