In Re the Marriage of Russell C. Best and Mariea L. Best, Mariea L. Best v. Russell C. Best ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before                      Jun 25 2014, 11:02 am
    any court except for the purpose of
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:                            ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    ANDREW C. MALLOR                                    ANDREW Z. SOSHNICK
    KENDRA G. GJERDINGEN                                TERESA A. GRIFFIN
    Mallor Grodner LLP                                  Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
    Bloomington, Indiana                                Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RUSSELL C.                    )
    BEST and MARIEA L. BEST,                            )
    )
    MARIEA L. BEST,                                     )
    )
    Appellant-Respondent,                        )
    )
    vs.                                  )     No. 06A04-1401-DR-46
    )
    RUSSELL C. BEST,                                    )
    )
    Appellee-Petitioner.                         )
    APPEAL FROM THE BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
    The Honorable Rebecca S. McClure, Special Judge
    Cause No. 06C01-0209-DR-381
    June 25, 2014
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY, Judge
    Mariea Best appeals the trial court’s enforcement of an October 2011 Mediated
    Agreed Entry, wherein the parties agreed that Russell Best would serve as guardian to the
    parties’ nineteen-year-old daughter, M.B., who has Down Syndrome. As the trial court had
    the authority to order Mariea to consent to Father’s guardianship of M.B., we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    At issue in this case is a Mediated Agreed Entry, which the Boone Circuit Court
    (hereinafter the dissolution court) approved in October 2011. The agreement provides in
    relevant part:
    3.     Neither party (either personally or in a representative capacity) will seek
    guardianship of [M.B.] prior to her attaining twenty-one years of age unless
    necessary for medical or public benefits purposes. If it becomes necessary
    before age twenty-one (21), it is agreed that Russell will serve as the guardian.
    Barring establishment of a guardianship, the custody order and jurisdiction of
    this Court remain in full force and effect.
    (Appellant’s App. at 127.) The dissolution court’s approval of the Mediated Agreed Entry
    provides that “each of the parties is bound by the terms and conditions of the Mediated
    Agreed Entry as an Order of this Court.” (Id. at 134.)
    In September and October 2013, Mariea filed several motions and petitions regarding
    M.B.’s guardianship and custody. Russell responded with a Verified Petition to Enforce
    Mediated Agreed Entry, for Directive, and for Dismissal of Modification Petition with
    Prejudice. On December 5, 2013, Mariea filed a response to Russell’s petition.
    On January 3, 2014, the dissolution court entered the following order on Russell’s
    Petition to Enforce the Mediated Agreed Entry:
    2
    8.      The issue of the guardianship of [M.B.] was resolved by the parties’
    2011 Mediated Agreed Entry in which Mari[e]a Best and Russell Best agreed
    that if guardianship of [M.B.] was necessary prior to [M.B’s] twenty first
    birthday, Russell Best would serve as [M.B.’s] guardian. The parties’
    agreement of October, 2011, further specified that the Boone Circuit Court,
    with Special Judge Rebecca S. McClure, presiding, retained jurisdiction and
    authority to enforce the Mediated Agreed Entry of the parties.
    9.    Pursuant to Boone County Local Rules of Court, in Boone County only
    Boone Superior Court I . . . has jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings.
    Boone Circuit Court has no such jurisdiction.
    10.     The Court hereby Orders that if deemed necessary for medical or public
    benefits purposes, Russell Best shall with the consent of Mariea Best, file a
    petition to establish guardianship over the person of [M.B.] in a court of proper
    jurisdiction.
    (Appellant’s App. pp. 79-80.) Mariea appeals.1
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    Mariea contends that “[b]y forcing Mother to consent to Father’s guardianship of their
    daughter when she no longer believes it is in the daughter’s best interest, the Dissolution
    Court is attempting to usurp the probate court of its duty to determine the person who will act
    in the best interest of the incapacitated person.” (Appellant’s Br. at 6.)
    Mariea’s argument overlooks the parties’ Mediated Agreed Entry, which provides that
    she and Russell “agreed that if guardianship of [M.B.] was necessary prior to [M.B.’s]
    twenty-first birthday, Russell Best would serve as [M.B.’s] guardian.” (Appellant’s App. at
    127.)
    1
    In January 2014, Russell filed for guardianship of M.B. in Boone Superior Court. In February 2014, Mariea
    filed a motion to dismiss Russell’s petition for guardianship, but subsequently agreed the Boone Superior
    Court would be the venue for the guardianship action and she agreed not to oppose Russell’s petition for the
    guardianship of M.B.
    3
    Settlement agreements are contractual in nature and binding if approved by the trial
    court. Pherson v. Lund, 
    997 N.E.2d 367
    , 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The dissolution court
    that enters a settlement agreement is in the best position to resolve questions of interpretation
    and enforcement of that agreement and retains this authority. 
    Id. This task
    is an exercise in
    the construction of the terms of a written contract, which is a pure question of law. 
    Id. Our standard
    of review is therefore de novo. 
    Id. When interpreting
    a settlement agreement, we
    apply the general rules of contract construction. 
    Id. Unless the
    terms of the contract are
    ambiguous, they will be given their plain and ordinary meaning. 
    Id. The parties’
    Mediated Agreed Entry provides that under certain circumstances, Mariea
    and Russell agree that Russell will act as M.B.’s guardian. Mariea and Russell do not dispute
    these circumstances exist. Pursuant to the Mediated Agreed Entry that Mariea signed and the
    dissolution court approved, the dissolution court had the authority to order Mariea to consent
    to Russell’s guardianship of M.B.
    Affirmed.
    KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06A04-1401-DR-46

Filed Date: 6/25/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021