Court Opinion

ID: 9730312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:08:05.843852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.716248
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The agreement here in issue was not an antenuptial agreement, and the policy reasons supporting the validity of such agreements entered into in contemplation of an impending marriage are not present. See In re Marriage of Boren (1985) Ind., 475 N.E.2d 690.
Secondly, the agreement is not validated by I.C. 81-1-11.5-10 because clearly it was not entered into "attendant upon the dissolution of their marriage." Boren, 475 N.E.2d at 695.
Finally, whether or not Indiana should consider validating so-called reconciliation agreements I find both problematical and an issue not properly before the court at this time.
Assuming arguendo that the desires of a couple to reconcile and make their marriage work are within sound public policy and might constitute valid consideration for a contractual agreement, the contract at bar neither recites in preamble nor contains any covenants by the parties to that effect. Indeed, it does not mischaracterize the agreement to state that it merely permitted the wife to return to the house with her daughter if she paid half the living expenses and agreed to give up any claim to the husband's property in the event of a future dissolution. It strikes me that the impact of such an agreement impedes rather than promotes honest efforts at reconciliation. Additionally, it is contrary to the public policy declared by the legislature concerning the division of property to be had upon the dissolution of a marriage. See 1.0. 81-1-11.5-11. I find no basis for counterbalancing that policy in the facts before us.
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.