ILNews

Pending dissolution settlement not enforceable upon a party's death

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A property-settlement document is not an enforceable contract if one of the parties dies before the dissolution action is finalized, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Dwight Murdock v. Estate of Sharron K. Murdock, No. 45A03-0912-CV-585, Dwight Murdock appealed an interlocutory order from Lake Superior Court’s Probate Division that declared the property-settlement document in his dissolution action created an enforceable contract. The dissolution action between Dwight and Sharron Murdock was pending when Sharron died.

Before her death, Dwight had signed a drafted settlement, and attorneys for Dwight and Sharron had signed under “approved as to form.” Sharron via telephone told her attorney she intended to sign but she did not before her death examine or sign the document, and therefore the dissolution court also did not sign the agreement.

Dwight initially was appointed personal representative of Sharron’s estate, but two of their five children successfully petitioned for his removal, arguing he was not an “interested person” because he forfeited his rights based on probate statutes Ind. Code § 29-1-2-14 and Ind. Code § 29-1-2-15 addressing adultery and spousal abandonment. The two children were then appointed co-representatives of their mother’s estate.

During a hearing before the probate court, the daughters argued the property-settlement document was an enforceable contract and Dwight argued it was now null. The estate asked the probate court to use the property-settlement document as a “template” based of the “intent” of Sharron and Dwight.

Also at the hearing, Sharron’s attorney testified that Sharron had expressed her intention to sign the settlement, and the court admitted into evidence the attorney’s affidavit expressing the attorney’s “professional opinion that the property settlement document ‘was to become effective upon its execution, and was not contingent on any Court approval.’”

The probate court found the document was enforceable, found the issue of abandonment moot, and reserved final judgment regarding whether Dwight had forfeited the right to inherit from Sharron’s estate. Dwight then filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing the probate court effectively required him to “deliver property and execute documents.”

Appellate Judge L. Mark Bailey cited Bailey v. Mann, 895 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind. 2008), that noted settlement agreements become binding when incorporated into a dissolution decree, and in this case, no such decree would be forthcoming.

The court also cited Johnson v. Johnson, 653 N.E.2d 512, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), noting that dissolution proceedings, including property settlements, terminate upon the death of one of the parties.

The court noted the settlement document was silent regarding its operation in the event of one of the party’s deaths. It was drafted in contemplation of a dissolution and that would not occur upon Sharron’s death.

Judge Bailey wrote, “… an attempt to enforce the provisions of the property settlement document – which had neither been fully executed nor adopted by the dissolution court – based upon a determination of 'intent' would contravene our Indiana Supreme Court’s directive that marital property settlement agreements become binding when incorporated into the dissolution decree. See Bailey, 895 N.E.2d at 1217.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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