« Law - "A Myth of Voter Fraud" | Main | Law - "Get Ready to Relearn the ADA" »
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides one today
In Stephanie Bailey v. Lewis Mann, a 4-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Boehm writes:
The parties entered into a property settlement agreement awarding a jointly leased automobile to the wife. There was no express requirement in the agreement that the wife remove the husband’s name from the lease. We hold that the law does not imply such a requirement in the absence of an express provision addressing it. * * *The trial court stayed its order requiring the wife to remove the husband’s name from the lease pending her appeal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an unpublished memorandum decision. Bailey v. Mann, No. 34A04-0709-CV-506, slip op. at 2 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2008). The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the Property Settlement Agreement was ambiguous, and held that the trial court correctly ordered the wife to remove the husband’s name from the lease to effectuate the “spirit” of the Property Settlement Agreement. Judge Kirsch dissented, observing the difficulty and expense of removing a party from a joint debt. * * *
We agree with the wife and Judge Kirsch. The Property Settlement Agreement requires the wife to make payments on the lease, but does not require her to refinance or remove the husband’s name from the lease. The husband is correct that the agreement provides the wife with “separate” assets. However, the term “separate” is used generally to describe all assets, and the phrases “subject to the lease thereon” and “joint debt” specifically modify the Pontiac G-6. As Judge Kirsch pointed out, the husband was free to negotiate a provision explicitly requiring the wife to remove his name from the lease. In fact, property settlement agreements frequently cover refinancing and removal of one party’s name from a joint debt. * * *
For several reasons, notably the desire to avoid refinancing costs, one or both of the parties may have agreed to leave both names on the lease or omitted to address the issue. We therefore do not find a requirement to remove the husband’s name to be an inevitable inference from an award of the vehicle to the wife. * * *
We reverse the part of the trial court’s order requiring the wife to remove the husband’s name from the Pontiac G-6 lease and affirm the part denying the wife’s motion for attorney fees.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 29, 2008 10:55 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions