- 12 -
And, in Johnson v. Johnson, supra at 516, the Indiana Court
of Appeals stated as follows:
We believe that the legislature did not intend for
trial courts to retain jurisdiction over dissolution
actions following the death of one of the parties for
the purpose of resolving property matters between the
parties and their successors in interest. The property
settlement is part and parcel of a final decree of
dissolution. Once the marriage is ended by the death
of one of the parties before the judgment is rendered,
no final decree can be attained. Without a final
decree, there can be no property settlement.
* * * [Citation omitted.]
Therefore, it follows that any obligation for support of the
payee spouse ceases with the death of such spouse. Thus, we
think that an Indiana court would hold that Mr. Heckaman’s
obligation to make the payments here in issue would have ceased
in the event of petitioner’s death because petitioner would not
have required any maintenance after her death (or required
tuition or life insurance premium reimbursement with respect to
any period after her death). The payments therefore are taxable
to petitioner pursuant to section 71.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as
respondent’s concession,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011