Indiana

A property settlement agreement which is incorporated into a final divorce decree is a binding contract, and the dissolution court may not modify that settlement absent fraud, duress, or undue influence. Adler v. Adler, 713 N.E.2d 348, 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Ind. Code § 31-15-2-17(c).

INDIANA CODE, SECTION 31-15-2-17

1. To promote the amicable settlements of disputes that have arisen or may arise between the parties to a marriage attendant upon the dissolution of their marriage, the parties may agree in writing to provisions for:
   1. the maintenance of either of the parties;
   2. the disposition of any property owned by either or both of the parties; and
   3. the custody and support of the children of the parties.
2. In an action for dissolution of marriage:
   1. the terms of the agreement, if approved by the court, shall be incorporated and merged into the decree and the parties shall be ordered to perform the terms; or
   2. the court may make provisions for:
      1. the disposition of property;
      2. child support;
      3. maintenance; and
      4. custody;

      as provided in this title.

3. The disposition of property settled by an agreement described in subsection (a) and incorporated and merged into the decree is not subject to subsequent modification by the court, except as the agreement prescribes or the parties subsequently consent.

INDIANA QDRO DECISIONS:

• INDIANA COURTS USE QDRO FORMS TO ENFORCE ALIMONY ARREARS:
  
  In Hogle v. Hogle, 732 N.E.2d 1278 (2000), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision entering a QDRO to satisfy alimony arrears.
  
  
• ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT QDRO'S ON BEHALF OF CLIENT LEADS TO REPRIMAND:
  
  In the case, In re Burns, 894 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 2008), the husband's attorney failed to submit proposed qualified domestic relations orders to the trial court for a period of eleven months after the entry a decree dissolving the parties' divorce. Thereafter, the attorney submitted two qdro forms, which were rejected as defective. Court directs reprimand of attorney based, among other things, failure to act with reasonable diligence.
  
  
• PARTIES ARE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT REVISED QDRO'S FOR ENTRY WHERE INITIAL QDRO FORM IS REJECTED BY THE PLAN:
  
  In Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind.App. 2006), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's issuance of a revised QDRO where the initial QDRO had been rejected by the plan administrator. The Court opined:Wife’s motion to submit a revised QDRO informed the court that the part of the decree distributing the pension was for all intents and purposes a nullity and, as a result, that the trial court had not completely divided the parties’ property. Thus, the trial court had an affirmative duty to amend the decree in order to divide the pension. It fulfilled that duty when, through the order granting Wife’s motion, it provided a workable method for determining Wife’s interest in Husband’s pension in compliance with ERISA and the pension plan.
  
  
• HUSBAND HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR TRANSFERING MARITAL FUNDS IN HIS 401K ACCOUNT:
  
  Inman v. Inman, 898 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009): Husband held in contempt where, instead of submitting a proposed QDRO as directed by the Court, he transferred his 401k to his self-directed IRA plan.