CourtListener opinion 10813440

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

IN THE

 Court of Appeals of Indiana
 FILED
 Alma Wilkerson,
 Feb 27 2025, 9:45 am
 Appellant-Petitioner, CLERK
 Indiana Supreme Court
 Court of Appeals
 and Tax Court
 v.

 James Douglas Egan, Jr.,
 Appellee-Respondent.

 February 27, 2025

 Court of Appeals Case No.
 24A-DN-1174

 Appeal from the
 Brown Circuit Court

 The Honorable
 Mary Wertz, Judge

 The Honorable
 Jennifer Wilson Reagan, Magistrate

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 1 of 7
 The Honorable
 Frank M. Nardi, Magistrate

 Trial Court Cause No.
 07C01-2204-DN-97

 Opinion by Senior Judge Robb
 Judges Pyle and Tavitas concur.

 Robb, Senior Judge.

 Statement of the Case
[1] Alma Wilkerson appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct error

 that challenged the court's ruling on her motion for relief from judgment

 concerning her receipt of funds through a qualified domestic relations order

 (QDRO). Finding no error, we affirm.

 Facts and Procedural History
[2] The marriage of Alma Wilkerson and James Egan, Jr. was dissolved in May

 2023. As part of the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Alma a

 portion of James' National Electrical Annuity Plan (NEAP) and ordered that

 she receive her share via a QDRO. Once the QDRO was submitted to NEAP,

 Alma was informed she is not eligible to receive the funds. The terms of the

 plan provide that Alma cannot receive her portion of the funds under the

 QDRO until James, the plan participant, reaches the age of 55. At the time,

 James was 41 years old.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 2 of 7
 [3] Alma moved for relief from judgment and requested the court to modify the

 parties' decree to order James to pay her a lump sum equal to her share of the

 NEAP account within sixty days. The court denied the motion, and Alma then

 moved to correct error, challenging the court's denial of her motion for relief

 from judgment. The court denied that motion as well, and Alma now appeals.

 Discussion and Decision
[4] Alma contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to

 correct error. We review the denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of

 discretion. Kobold v. Kobold, 121 N.E.3d 564, 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans.

 denied. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is against the logic and

 effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or where the court has

 erred on a matter of law. Id.

[5] Underlying Alma's motion to correct error is her motion for relief from

 judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B). "‘[A] motion made under T.R. 60(B) is

 addressed to the equitable discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only

 upon an abuse of that discretion.'" Bello v. Bello, 102 N.E.3d 891, 894 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 2018) (quoting Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148, 1152-53 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 2007), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is

 clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the

 court or is contrary to law. Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 728 (Ind. Ct.

 App. 2006), trans. denied. The movant bears the burden of establishing grounds

 for relief under Rule 60(B). Bello, 102 N.E.3d at 894.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 3 of 7
 [6] Trial Rule 60(B)(8) provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment

 for "any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, other than

 those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4)." Further, per the

 rule's language, a Rule 60(B)(8) motion must be filed within a reasonable time

 and must allege a meritorious claim or defense. See Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(8).

[7] In addition, precedent requires that the moving party must also demonstrate

 some extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief.

 Centennial Park, LLC v. Highland Park Ests., LLC, 151 N.E.3d 1230, 1237 (Ind.

 Ct. App. 2020) (quoting State v. Collier, 61 N.E.3d 265, 268 (Ind. 2016)), trans.

 denied. Such relief, however, is limited to extraordinary circumstances "which

 are not the result of any fault or negligence on the part of the movant."

 Kretschmer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 15 N.E.3d 595, 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.

 denied. Thus, to be granted relief, Alma must show: (1) she brought her claim
 1
 within a reasonable time; (2) she has alleged a meritorious claim; and (3)

 extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justify relief.

[8] Alma argues she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because it was the

 court's intention that she receive her funds immediately and that objective

 could not be accomplished. See Appellant's Br. p. 18; see also Appellant's App.

 Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶¶ 6, 7). In support of this

 argument, Alma cites to this language:

 1
 The timing of Alma's motion is not at issue.

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 4 of 7
 The Alternate Payee may receive Ninety-Five Thousand One
 Hundred Twenty Two Dollars and Twenty Six Cents
 ($95,122.26) of the Participant's account immediately.

 See Appellant's Br. p. 10; see also Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for

 Relief from Judgment, ¶ 7).

[9] However, the language Alma cites as proof of the court's intent is not the

 language of the court's decree but rather the language of the QDRO drafted by

 her attorney. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 26 (QDRO, ¶ 5). The decree

 merely states:

 The Court awards Wife $95,122.26 of Husband's NEAP
 retirement account and awards Husband the remaining value of
 this account. The Court Orders that Wife shall be awarded her
 share of this account by a qualified domestic relations order. The
 Court Orders Wife's attorney to submit such a qualified domestic
 relations order for the Court's consideration.

 Id. at 19 (Decree of Dissolution, ¶ 13). Indeed, in its order denying Alma's

 motion for relief from judgment, the trial court stated:

 The Court disagrees with Petitioner that the intention of the
 Court was for the immediate distribution of the NEAP retirement
 account. Specifically, there is no language in the Decree
 specifying a date of distribution, whether it be immediate or in 14
 years.

 Id. at 51 (Order Denying Relief from Judgment, ¶ 6).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 5 of 7
 [10] The court's decree plainly awarded Alma $95,122.26 of James' NEAP

 retirement account, and, as the court clearly stated in its order denying Alma's

 Rule 60(B) motion, there were no time constraints placed on the award. The

 court's order in the decree can be accomplished, just not on the timeline that

 Alma desires. Contra Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (concluding that court did not

 err when it granted relief from judgment where court's decree ordered

 distribution of husband's pension under terms not permitted by pension plan

 and was thus legally impossible to carry out as court had ordered).

[11] Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Alma demonstrated a

 meritorious claim, she is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because she

 did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that resulted from something

 other than her fault or negligence. James asserts that Alma was provided

 information regarding the NEAP account prior to the final hearing and that she

 had ample time to obtain further information concerning the rules and

 procedures applicable to the account. Alma does not suggest otherwise and has

 not shown that these circumstances were not a result of her fault or negligence.

 And she has offered no extraordinary circumstances that would invoke the

 court's equitable powers under Rule 60(B)(8). Thus, while this situation may be

 less than desirable for Alma, it does not amount to extraordinary circumstances

 justifying relief under Rule 60(B)(8).

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 6 of 7
 Conclusion
[12] We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Alma's Trial

 Rule 60 motion or when it denied her related motion to correct error.

[13] Affirmed.

 Pyle, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
 Carl Paul Lamb
 Carl Lamb & Associates, PC
 Bloomington, Indiana

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
 Kendra G. Gjerdingen
 Mallor Grodner LLP
 Bloomington, Indiana

 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 7 of 7