Florence Speichert v. Carl Speichert (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any May 25 2017, 8:51 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE D. Eric Neff Margo R. Babineaux Crown Point, Indiana Meinzer & Babineaux LLC St. John, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Florence Speichert, May 25, 2017 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A05-1610-DR-2451 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court Carl Speichert, The Honorable Nanette K. Appellee-Petitioner Raduenz, Special Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45D05-1605-DR-15

Baker, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 1 of 8 [1] Carl Speichert (“Husband”) filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Florence

Speichert (“Wife”). Wife appeals the trial court’s enforcement of the parties’

marital property agreement.

Facts [2] Husband and Wife were married on November 2, 1997. They each had

children from prior marriages, but none of this marriage. Both Husband and

Wife owned assets in their individual names prior to the marriage. [3] In May 2002, the parties discussed keeping their property separate so they could

maintain their assets for their respective children. Because verbal

communication was minimal in their marriage, Husband gave Wife a

handwritten document that itemized their separate property; both Husband and

Wife signed this document. [4] In March 2007, Husband wanted to separate from Wife and considered ending

their marriage. On March 6, 2007, Husband gave Wife a handwritten letter in

which he stated that he was unhappy and wanted to separate. Husband then

consulted an attorney, from whom he learned that he could either pursue a

dissolution of marriage or sign a formal post-nuptial agreement and attempt to

make the marriage work. Husband decided to stay in the marriage, and he

asked his attorney to draft the post-nuptial agreement. [5] On June 12, 2007, Husband and Wife executed a Marital Property Agreement

(the “Agreement”) which established each of their rights in and to the other’s

property and each of their wishes to preserve their assets for their respective Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 2 of 8

children in the event of death or dissolution of marriage. The Agreement

provided that Husband’s and Wife’s individually held property would continue

to be owned as separate property by each of them as individuals; it also

provided that Husband and Wife disclaimed any interest in and to the property

of the other. Schedule A listed Wife’s individual assets, and Schedule B listed

Husband’s individual assets. [6] Since at least 2002, Husband and Wife have maintained their individually held

assets separately, although Husband paid their joint credit card debt. Since at

least 2007, Husband and Wife lived in the same home but pursued separate

lives. They handled their own financial matters separately without input from

the other; they used their own respective incomes and savings to pay their own

costs and expenses, including the expenses for the real property each owned;

and they filed individual tax returns each year and did not share any income tax

refunds. Husband and Wife hardly talked with or spent time with each other. [7] On November 23, 2015, Husband filed a petition to dissolve their marriage. On

March 4, 2016, Husband filed a motion to enforce the Agreement; Wife filed an

objection. After a hearing on June 17, 2016, on the motion to enforce the

Agreement, the trial court granted Husband’s motion. On August 15, 2016,

Wife filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. She now

appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 3 of 8

Discussion and Decision I. Enforcement of the Agreement [8] Wife argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the Agreement is valid

and enforceable because it was not supported by adequate consideration. Our

standard of review of the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusion is well

established:

[F]irst we determine whether the evidence supports the findings, and second, whether the findings support the judgment. In deference to the trial court’s proximity to the issues, we disturb the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. We do not reweigh the evidence, but consider only the evidence favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Those appealing the trial court's judgment must establish that the findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. We do not defer to conclusions of law, however, and evaluate them de novo.

Hall v. Hall, 27 N.E.3d 281, 284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citations omitted). [9] To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise

between parties to a marriage in the event of the dissolution of their marriage,

the parties may agree in writing to provisions for the disposition of any property

owned by either or both of the parties. Ind. Code § 31-15-2-17. Reconciliation

agreements made between parties in order to preserve the marriage are valid

and binding when they are entered into freely and without fraud, duress, or

misrepresentation, and are not unconscionable. Hall, 27 N.E.3d at 285. “[T]he

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 4 of 8

extension of a marriage that would have otherwise been dissolved but for the

execution of an agreement to reconcile has been deemed adequate

consideration” to support a reconciliation agreement. Id. [10] When Husband was unhappy in the marriage, he consulted an attorney about

his options. Husband testified that, but for this Agreement, he would have filed

a petition to dissolve the marriage. Husband and Wife had a strained

relationship and seldom verbally communicated with each other. Nonetheless,

after signing the Agreement, the marriage continued for an additional nine

years. This evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusion

that the Agreement constituted a reconciliation agreement supported by

adequate consideration. [11] Wife also argues that because she and Husband resided together in the marital

residence and were not physically separated when they executed the

Agreement, they were not “sufficiently separated” for the requirements of

Indiana Code section 31-15-2-17 to be met. Appellant’s Br. p. 14. Initially, we

note that Indiana Code section 31-15-2-17, which governs post-nuptial

agreements, does not refer to the separation status of the parties of the marriage.

Moreover, the initiation of dissolution proceedings is not a condition precedent

to a valid and enforceable reconciliation agreement. Hall, 27 N.E.3d at 285.

Instead, “[t]he proper inquiry is whether the agreement was executed in order

to preserve and extend a marriage that otherwise would have been dissolved but

for the execution of the agreement” regardless of the status of formal separation

or legal proceedings. Id. Accordingly, the fact that Husband and Wife were

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 5 of 8

living in the same house is not relevant in determining the Agreement’s

enforceability.

II. Parol Evidence [12] Wife also argues that the trial court erred by admitting parol evidence during

the hearing even though the Agreement contained no ambiguity. Specifically,

the trial court admitted into evidence the parties’ 2002 agreement and

Husband’s 2007 letter to Wife over the Wife’s objections.1 [13] During the hearing, Wife alleged that the Agreement was invalid because she

signed it under duress, she had not read the Agreement before she signed it,

there was no meeting of the minds, and there was a lack of consideration. The

acceptance or rejection of a post-nuptial agreement is within the trial court's

discretion. Beaman v. Beaman, 844 N.E.2d 525, 530 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

When allegations are made about an agreement’s validity, courts have looked

to the parties’ behavior and other circumstances to understand their state of

mind and intent. See Ryan v. Ryan, 659 N.E.2d 1088, 1092 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)

(finding that the trial court could rely on evidence outside the pre-nuptial

agreement to support to validity of the agreement).

1 During the hearing, Wife objected to the admission of the 2002 agreement based on relevancy and the admission of the letter based on authenticity. Thus, the argument raised on appeal based on parol evidence is waived. Waiver notwithstanding, we will still discuss her argument.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 6 of 8 [14] Here, the trial court admitted into evidence the 2002 agreement and Husband’s

2007 letter to Wife to determine each party’s state of mind and intent in signing

the Agreement. The trial court considered the 2002 agreement, the fact that

Wife acted accordingly and in compliance with its terms, and the fact that the

Agreement mirrors the 2002 agreement, as evidence that the parties always

intended to maintain their individual assets separately. As for the 2007 letter,

the trial court admitted it to further evaluate the parties’ intent when they

signed the Agreement, and found that Wife’s testimony substantiated the facts

set forth in the letter about the status of their marital relationship, including that

Husband and Wife were living separate lives and spending little time together.

In sum, the trial court considered and weighed these two documents to support

its finding that there was a meeting of the minds as to the intent and purpose of

the Agreement and that the Agreement accurately reflected Husband and

Wife’s intentions in 2007. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. [15] Wife also contends that the Lake County local rules require complete financial

disclosure, and that she did not have full disclosure before she entered into the

Agreement. However, it is undisputed that Schedules A and B attached to the

Agreement accurately reflected all property individually owned by each party.

Moreover, because Husband and Wife maintained their assets separately both

before and after they signed the Agreement, and because Wife does not specify

what information was not disclosed to her, we do not see what additional

disclosures she could expect.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 7 of 8 [16] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1610-DR-2451 | May 25, 2017 Page 8 of 8