These opinions are not precedents and cannot be cited or relied upon unless used when establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel or in actions between the same party. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 65(D).
APPEAL FROM THE WARRICK SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1. The Honorable Keith A. Meier, Judge. Cause No. 87D01-1004-DR-169.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: S. ADAM LONG, LONG & MATHIES LAW FIRM, Boonville, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GLENN A. GRAMPP, Evansville, Indiana.
MATHIAS, Judge. BRADFORD, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION -- NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The marriage of Earika Fussner (" Wife" ) and Clint Fussner (" Husband" ) was dissolved in Warrick Superior Court. Wife now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion for clarification of the decree of dissolution and granting Husband's motion to dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
Husband and Wife married on June 9, 1984, and separated on April 8, 2010. On June 18, 2010, Husband and Wife, who were both self-represented at the time, submitted to the trial court a decree of dissolution of marriage and settlement agreement. Husband and Wife had completed the decree and agreement together using a form approved by the Division of State Court Administration. The decree was signed by both parties in the presence of a notary public. The decree provided, among other things, that " the parties already have divided all items of property." Appellant's App. pp. 52-53. The trial court approved the decree of dissolution and settlement agreement on the same day it was submitted, June 18, 2010.
Husband retired sixteen months later, in October 2011, and began to draw his pension. On December 20, 2011, a year and a half after the trial court approved the decree of dissolution submitted by the parties, Wife filed an amended motion for clarification of the decree. In her motion, Wife argued that " information related to [Husband's pension was] inadvertently left out of the Decree and the Decree should be clarified and interpreted by this Court." Appellant's App. p. 13. With her motion, Wife submitted two exhibits: a series of email communications between Husband and the pension administrator for Husband's employer regarding the divorce and calculation of Husband's pension, and a handwritten, two-page list of assets which Wife argued " shows the [parties'] intent as to how their property and assets were to be divided." Id. at 12. The latter exhibit, according to Wife, was executed prior to the execution of the decree of dissolution. The list placed in Wife's column " 1/2 retirement" and " 1/2 s & p stocks" and appeared to be signed by Husband. Id. at 23.
On February 10, 2012, Husband filed a motion to dismiss Wife's motion for clarification, arguing that " there is no issue before this court that there is any confusion" and that " the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order are clear on their face and there is no allegation of fraud, mistake, duress or any other contention that would justify a Request for Clarification." Id. at 26. Husband further asserted, " essentially the respondent's Motion for ...