Legal Opinion

Barbara J. Pohl v. Michael G. Pohl

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided September 9, 2014No. 32S04-1404-DR-245PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RUSH, Chief Justice.

Nearly twenty years ago, our decision in Voigt v. Voigt reserved the question of whether a court may modify a maintenance obligation that originates in a settlement agreement, but rests on grounds such as incapacity that would have permitted an identical award even in the absence of an agreement. 670 N.E.2d 1271, 1280 n. 13 (Ind.1996). That question poses a choice between a rock and a hard place: As Voigt recognized, permitting modification may unjustly upend a delicate balance the parties struck in negotiations with the expectation of finality. Id. at 1278 & n. 11. Yet…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. BrunnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Johnson v. JohnsonIndiana Supreme Court · 2010
  3. In Re Paternity of PSSIndiana Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Bailey v. MannIndiana Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Voigt v. VoigtIndiana Supreme Court · 1996

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brad Barton v. Alexandra BartonIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. August Wohlt v. Christi WohltIndiana Supreme Court · 2024
  3. COMEDICA INCORPORATED v. HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2023
  4. Ruehl v. AM General LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2020
  5. SCHORR v. PPA HOLDINGS, INC.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2023

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API