Title: Dodd v. Estate of Yanan

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

625 N.E.2d 456 (1993)
Carolyn Sue DODD, Appellant,
v.
ESTATE OF James P. YANAN, Appellee.
No. 49S04-9312-CV-1332.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
December 3, 1993.
William A. Freihofer, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Joseph P. Murdock, Smith & Murdock, Glenn E. Davis, Jr., Davis, Davis & Langan, Indianapolis, for appellee.
GIVAN, Justice.
Appellant was married to James P. Yanan in October of 1975. The marriage was dissolved on May 9, 1986. In April of that year, the parties had entered into a property settlement agreement, which was subsequently approved by the trial court in the dissolution action. James died May 6, 1989. At that time, appellant alleges she discovered that James had withheld information from her concerning his net worth and that he thus perpetrated a fraud in inducing the property settlement agreement, which became a part of the divorce court's judgment.
The present action was brought by appellant against James' estate seeking both monetary and punitive damages because of James' alleged fraud. The estate filed a "Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment." Following hearing on this motion the trial court entered the following order.
The Court of Appeals, in an opinion reported at 587 N.E.2d 1348 (1992), reversed the trial court and remanded for a hearing on the ground that the claim for fraud had not been waived because Caroline had no knowledge that James was defrauding her at the time she entered into the agreement. However, as quoted above, the trial court dismissed the cause because it was an impermissible collateral attack on the dissolution decree. The trial court was correct in making such observation. If Caroline in fact was defrauded by James, those facts should be presented to the court rendering the dissolution.
A judgment of dissolution is a final judgment not subject to collateral attack in a sister court. Goodyear v. Goodyear (1982), Ind. App., 441 N.E.2d 498; Anderson v. Anderson (1979), Ind. App., 399 N.E.2d 391. In the Anderson case, Judge Shields, writing for the Court of Appeals, made the following statement:
Appellant's sole avenue for redress was to first apply for modification of the divorce decree under Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-17(b), and if successful in such modification, to then proceed to collect a judgment against James' estate. This cannot be accomplished by a collateral attack in the probate court. The trial judge was correct in dismissing the action.
The trial court is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, DICKSON and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.