Haggarty v. Haggarty

• Decision Date: 17 August 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-DC-1877
• Citation: 176 N.E.3d 234
• Parties: Sandra HAGGARTY, Appellant-Petitioner, v. Thomas M. HAGGARTY, Appellee-Respondent
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

176 N.E.3d 234

Sandra HAGGARTY, Appellant-Petitioner,

v.Thomas M. HAGGARTY, Appellee-Respondent

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-DC-1877

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED August 17, 2021

Attorneys for Appellant: Mark A. Garvin, Cornelius B. (Neil) Hayes, Fort Wayne, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Marcus L. Rogers, Paul R. Sturm, Shambaugh Kast Beck & Williams, LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana

May, Judge.

[1] Sandra Haggarty appeals following the trial court's resolution of contested issues in the dissolution of her marriage to Thomas M. Haggarty. On appeal, Sandra raises four issues, which we restate as:

1. Whether the trial court erroneously determined when Thomas breached their premarital agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") by failing to maintain a joint checking account with funds for paying monthly ordinary living expenses;

2. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Sandra's request for prejudgment interest on the damages awarded for Thomas's breach of the Agreement's requirement that he maintain that joint checking account;

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Sandra's objection and request for relief from her own "Release of Judgment" documents (hereinafter "Releases"); and

4. Whether the trial court erred when it awarded attorneys’ fees to Thomas in its order denying Sandra's request for relief from her own Releases.

On cross-appeal, Thomas asserts one issue, which we restate as: Whether the trial court erred when it used parol evidence to determine the meaning of "ordinary living expenses" as used in the Agreement's requirement that he maintain a joint checking account with Sandra. Because this cross-appeal issue implicates the validity of the trial court's interpretation of Thomas's obligation to maintain a joint checking account, we will address Thomas's cross-appeal issue as a second part of Sandra's first issue. For reasons discussed more fully below, we affirm.¹

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 30, 2000, in contemplation of their impending marriage, Thomas and Sandra² entered an Agreement that contained the following pertinent provisions:

2. Thomas M. Haggarty's Separate Property .

For purposes of this Agreement, Thomas M. Haggarty's Separate Property shall mean the following: any and all assets and properties owned by him legally or beneficially, which are now owned or hereafter acquired, and including without limitation any subsequent income from or appreciation in value of such assets or properties. His Separate Property shall specifically include all property which he inherits. His Separate Property shall not include property titled or owned jointly by and between the parties, which joint property shall include property that was acquired with Separate Property or income from Separate Property.

3. Sandy Reilly's Separate Property .

For purposes of this Agreement, Sandy Reilly's Separate Property shall mean the following: any and all assets and properties owned by her legally or beneficially, which are now owned or hereafter acquired, and including without limitation any subsequent income from or appreciation in value of such assets or properties. Her Separate Property shall specifically include all property which she inherits. Her Separate Property shall not include property titled or owned jointly by and between the parties, which joint property shall include property that was acquired with Separate Property or income from Separate Property.

4. Rights of the Parties Upon Dissolution of Marriage . If the intended marriage of the parties is terminated by decree of dissolution of marriage or a decree of legal separation (or any other court order terminating their marriage) ("Marriage Dissolution"), the parties agree as follows with respect to the Marriage Dissolution proceeding:

a. Subject to the provisions of 4c., Sandy Reilly agrees that Thomas M. Haggarty's Separate Property shall not be considered marital property, property of the parties, or an asset subject to division or allocation by a court. Thomas M. Haggarty's Separate Property shall be ignored and not considered by the court in the Marriage Dissolution proceeding for purposes of dividing or disposing of marital property or property of the parties or for purposes of considering spousal maintenance or alimony. Sandy Reilly further agrees that she shall not seek, demand or claim any interest in, share of, or credit for Thomas M. Haggarty's Separate Property. In any Marriage Dissolution proceeding, Thomas M. Haggarty shall be able to keep and retain his Separate Property in the same as though no marriage had ever been entered into by the parties. Sandy Reilly further agrees that she shall not allege or claim that, because Thomas M. Haggarty is entitled to keep his Separate Property, and as a result of "economic circumstances" or otherwise, (i) she is entitled to receive or be allocated other marital property or (ii) Thomas M. Haggarty should be required to pay to her any sum of money, except Sandy Reilly shall be entitled to reasonable maintenance during the time the Marriage Dissolution Proceeding is pending but not to exceed six months in duration and Sandy Reilly shall not be prohibited from seeking payment from Thomas M. Haggarty of part or all of her attorney fees in a Marriage Dissolution proceeding.

b. Thomas M. Haggarty agrees that Sandy Reilly's Separate Property shall not be considered marital property, property of the parties, or an asset subject to division or allocation by a court. Sandy Reilly's Separate Property shall be ignored and not considered by the court in the Marriage Dissolution proceeding for purposes of dividing or disposing of marital property or property of the parties or for purposes of considering spousal maintenance or alimony. Thomas M. Haggarty further agrees that he shall not seek, demand or claim any interest in, share of, or credit for Sandy Reilly's Separate Property. In any Marriage Dissolution proceeding, Sandy Reilly shall be able to keep and retain her Separate Property the same as though no marriage had ever been entered into by the parties. Thomas M. Haggarty further agrees that he shall not allege or claim that, because Sandy Reilly is entitled to keep her Separate Property, and as a result of "economic circumstances" or otherwise, (i) he is entitled to receive or be allocated other marital property, (ii) Sandy Reilly should be required to pay to him any sum of money, or (iii) he is entitled to receive alimony, maintenance of any type, or attorneys’ fees.

* * * * *

9. Joint Property. The parties are not prohibited by this Agreement from transferring their Separate Property into joint ownership with each other. Thomas M. Haggarty agrees to transfer the residence he is currently having constructed into joint ownership with Sandy Reilly on or before January 1, 2001, after which date the residence shall be considered joint property for purposes of this Agreement. Thomas M. Haggarty further agrees to maintain a checking account titled jointly with Sandy Reilly with an average balance sufficient to pay ordinary living expenses for a month. Property titled or owned jointly by and between the parties (i) shall become the sole property of the surviving party in the event of the death of one party and (ii) shall be considered marital property in the event of a Marriage Dissolution, to be divided equally between them. For purposes of this paragraph, all household furniture, appliances and furnishings, now owned or hereafter acquired, shall be deemed to be owned jointly by the parties.

(Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 32-34, 37.) Thomas and Sandra married on July 15, 2000. Sandra had a son from a prior marriage who lived with Thomas and Sandra during their marriage. In addition, the marriage produced a daughter, who was born January 13, 2004.

[3] On March 22, 2018, Sandra filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On November 21, 2018, Sandra filed motion for partial summary judgment in which she argued Thomas breached their Agreement by failing to maintain the joint checking account for ordinary living expenses, and she filed designated evidence in support thereof. Thomas filed a response in opposition to Sandra's motion and a designation of evidence. After Sandra filed a reply brief, the trial court denied Sandra's motion on September 27, 2019.³

[4] The court set trial on the matter for October 8, 9, and 10, 2019. Sandra filed a motion requesting the court enter special findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Trial Rule 52. Following the hearing, the magistrate took the case under advisement and ordered the parties to submit proposed findings and conclusions. The parties filed those proposed findings and conclusions, but the magistrate did not timely issue an order. As a result, Sandra filed a praecipe with the Indiana Supreme Court pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 53. The Indiana Supreme Court removed the magistrate and remanded the case to Judge Felts.

[5] On May 22, 2020, Judge Felts entered a dissolution order that included the following pertinent Findings of Fact:

8. During their marriage, the parties maintained separate finances. [Sandra] had a separate bank account at Three Rivers Federal Credit Union. [Thomas] had a separate bank account at PNC Bank. 9. [Sandra] deposited her income into her separate bank account at Three Rivers Federal Credit Union. Further, [Sandra] deposited child support payments made by her prior born child's father into her separate account. [Sandra] used the funds she deposited into her Three Rivers Federal Credit Union account to purchase personal property and for personal expenses. [Sandra]’s Three Rivers Federal Credit Union accounts are her separate property under the Premarital Agreement.

10. [Thomas] deposited his income into his separate bank account. [Thomas] used the funds he deposited into his PNC Bank account for his personal expenses and all the household expenses such as utilities, maintenance, and improvements to the marital home and

...