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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT