IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Alma Wilkerson, Feb 27 2025, 9:45 am Appellant-Petitioner, CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court v.
James Douglas Egan, Jr., Appellee-Respondent.
February 27, 2025
Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-DN-1174
Appeal from the Brown Circuit Court
The Honorable Mary Wertz, Judge
The Honorable Jennifer Wilson Reagan, Magistrate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 1 of 7 The Honorable Frank M. Nardi, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No. 07C01-2204-DN-97
Opinion by Senior Judge Robb Judges Pyle and Tavitas concur.
Robb, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case [1] Alma Wilkerson appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error
that challenged the court’s ruling on her motion for relief from judgment
concerning her receipt of funds through a qualified domestic relations order
(QDRO). Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] The marriage of Alma Wilkerson and James Egan, Jr. was dissolved in May
2023. As part of the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Alma a
portion of James’ National Electrical Annuity Plan (NEAP) and ordered that
she receive her share via a QDRO. Once the QDRO was submitted to NEAP,
Alma was informed she is not eligible to receive the funds. The terms of the
plan provide that Alma cannot receive her portion of the funds under the
QDRO until James, the plan participant, reaches the age of 55. At the time,
James was 41 years old.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 2 of 7 [3] Alma moved for relief from judgment and requested the court to modify the
parties’ decree to order James to pay her a lump sum equal to her share of the
NEAP account within sixty days. The court denied the motion, and Alma then
moved to correct error, challenging the court’s denial of her motion for relief
from judgment. The court denied that motion as well, and Alma now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [4] Alma contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to
correct error. We review the denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of
discretion. Kobold v. Kobold, 121 N.E.3d 564, 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans.
denied. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or where the court has
erred on a matter of law. Id.
[5] Underlying Alma’s motion to correct error is her motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B). “‘[A] motion made under T.R. 60(B) is
addressed to the equitable discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only
upon an abuse of that discretion.’” Bello v. Bello, 102 N.E.3d 891, 894 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2018) (quoting Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148, 1152-53 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court or is contrary to law. Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 728 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006), trans. denied. The movant bears the burden of establishing grounds
for relief under Rule 60(B). Bello, 102 N.E.3d at 894.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 3 of 7 [6] Trial Rule 60(B)(8) provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment
for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, other than
those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).” Further, per the
rule’s language, a Rule 60(B)(8) motion must be filed within a reasonable time
and must allege a meritorious claim or defense. See Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(8).
[7] In addition, precedent requires that the moving party must also demonstrate
some extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief.
Centennial Park, LLC v. Highland Park Ests., LLC, 151 N.E.3d 1230, 1237 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2020) (quoting State v. Collier, 61 N.E.3d 265, 268 (Ind. 2016)), trans.
denied. Such relief, however, is limited to extraordinary circumstances “which
are not the result of any fault or negligence on the part of the movant.”
Kretschmer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 15 N.E.3d 595, 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied. Thus, to be granted relief, Alma must show: (1) she brought her claim 1 within a reasonable time; (2) she has alleged a meritorious claim; and (3)
extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justify relief.
[8] Alma argues she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because it was the
court’s intention that she receive her funds immediately and that objective
could not be accomplished. See Appellant’s Br. p. 18; see also Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶¶ 6, 7). In support of this
argument, Alma cites to this language:
1 The timing of Alma’s motion is not at issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 4 of 7 The Alternate Payee may receive Ninety-Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two Dollars and Twenty Six Cents ($95,122.26) of the Participant’s account immediately.
See Appellant’s Br. p. 10; see also Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for
Relief from Judgment, ¶ 7).
[9] However, the language Alma cites as proof of the court’s intent is not the
language of the court’s decree but rather the language of the QDRO drafted by
her attorney. See Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 26 (QDRO, ¶ 5). The decree
merely states:
The Court awards Wife $95,122.26 of Husband’s NEAP retirement account and awards Husband the remaining value of this account. The Court Orders that Wife shall be awarded her share of this account by a qualified domestic relations order. The Court Orders Wife’s attorney to submit such a qualified domestic relations order for the Court’s consideration.
Id. at 19 (Decree of Dissolution, ¶ 13). Indeed, in its order denying Alma’s
motion for relief from judgment, the trial court stated:
The Court disagrees with Petitioner that the intention of the Court was for the immediate distribution of the NEAP retirement account. Specifically, there is no language in the Decree specifying a date of distribution, whether it be immediate or in 14 years.
Id. at 51 (Order Denying Relief from Judgment, ¶ 6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 5 of 7 [10] The court’s decree plainly awarded Alma $95,122.26 of James’ NEAP
retirement account, and, as the court clearly stated in its order denying Alma’s
Rule 60(B) motion, there were no time constraints placed on the award. The
court’s order in the decree can be accomplished, just not on the timeline that
Alma desires. Contra Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (concluding that court did not
err when it granted relief from judgment where court’s decree ordered
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED Alma Wilkerson, Feb 27 2025, 9:45 am Appellant-Petitioner, CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court v.
James Douglas Egan, Jr., Appellee-Respondent.
February 27, 2025
Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-DN-1174
Appeal from the Brown Circuit Court
The Honorable Mary Wertz, Judge
The Honorable Jennifer Wilson Reagan, Magistrate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 1 of 7 The Honorable Frank M. Nardi, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No. 07C01-2204-DN-97
Opinion by Senior Judge Robb Judges Pyle and Tavitas concur.
Robb, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case [1] Alma Wilkerson appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error
that challenged the court’s ruling on her motion for relief from judgment
concerning her receipt of funds through a qualified domestic relations order
(QDRO). Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] The marriage of Alma Wilkerson and James Egan, Jr. was dissolved in May
2023. As part of the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Alma a
portion of James’ National Electrical Annuity Plan (NEAP) and ordered that
she receive her share via a QDRO. Once the QDRO was submitted to NEAP,
Alma was informed she is not eligible to receive the funds. The terms of the
plan provide that Alma cannot receive her portion of the funds under the
QDRO until James, the plan participant, reaches the age of 55. At the time,
James was 41 years old.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 2 of 7 [3] Alma moved for relief from judgment and requested the court to modify the
parties’ decree to order James to pay her a lump sum equal to her share of the
NEAP account within sixty days. The court denied the motion, and Alma then
moved to correct error, challenging the court’s denial of her motion for relief
from judgment. The court denied that motion as well, and Alma now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [4] Alma contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to
correct error. We review the denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of
discretion. Kobold v. Kobold, 121 N.E.3d 564, 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans.
denied. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or where the court has
erred on a matter of law. Id.
[5] Underlying Alma’s motion to correct error is her motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B). “‘[A] motion made under T.R. 60(B) is
addressed to the equitable discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only
upon an abuse of that discretion.’” Bello v. Bello, 102 N.E.3d 891, 894 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2018) (quoting Brimhall v. Brewster, 864 N.E.2d 1148, 1152-53 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court or is contrary to law. Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722, 728 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006), trans. denied. The movant bears the burden of establishing grounds
for relief under Rule 60(B). Bello, 102 N.E.3d at 894.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 3 of 7 [6] Trial Rule 60(B)(8) provides that a court may relieve a party from a judgment
for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, other than
those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).” Further, per the
rule’s language, a Rule 60(B)(8) motion must be filed within a reasonable time
and must allege a meritorious claim or defense. See Ind. Trial Rule 60(B)(8).
[7] In addition, precedent requires that the moving party must also demonstrate
some extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief.
Centennial Park, LLC v. Highland Park Ests., LLC, 151 N.E.3d 1230, 1237 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2020) (quoting State v. Collier, 61 N.E.3d 265, 268 (Ind. 2016)), trans.
denied. Such relief, however, is limited to extraordinary circumstances “which
are not the result of any fault or negligence on the part of the movant.”
Kretschmer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 15 N.E.3d 595, 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied. Thus, to be granted relief, Alma must show: (1) she brought her claim 1 within a reasonable time; (2) she has alleged a meritorious claim; and (3)
extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justify relief.
[8] Alma argues she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because it was the
court’s intention that she receive her funds immediately and that objective
could not be accomplished. See Appellant’s Br. p. 18; see also Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶¶ 6, 7). In support of this
argument, Alma cites to this language:
1 The timing of Alma’s motion is not at issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 4 of 7 The Alternate Payee may receive Ninety-Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two Dollars and Twenty Six Cents ($95,122.26) of the Participant’s account immediately.
See Appellant’s Br. p. 10; see also Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for
Relief from Judgment, ¶ 7).
[9] However, the language Alma cites as proof of the court’s intent is not the
language of the court’s decree but rather the language of the QDRO drafted by
her attorney. See Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 26 (QDRO, ¶ 5). The decree
merely states:
The Court awards Wife $95,122.26 of Husband’s NEAP retirement account and awards Husband the remaining value of this account. The Court Orders that Wife shall be awarded her share of this account by a qualified domestic relations order. The Court Orders Wife’s attorney to submit such a qualified domestic relations order for the Court’s consideration.
Id. at 19 (Decree of Dissolution, ¶ 13). Indeed, in its order denying Alma’s
motion for relief from judgment, the trial court stated:
The Court disagrees with Petitioner that the intention of the Court was for the immediate distribution of the NEAP retirement account. Specifically, there is no language in the Decree specifying a date of distribution, whether it be immediate or in 14 years.
Id. at 51 (Order Denying Relief from Judgment, ¶ 6).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 5 of 7 [10] The court’s decree plainly awarded Alma $95,122.26 of James’ NEAP
retirement account, and, as the court clearly stated in its order denying Alma’s
Rule 60(B) motion, there were no time constraints placed on the award. The
court’s order in the decree can be accomplished, just not on the timeline that
Alma desires. Contra Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (concluding that court did not
err when it granted relief from judgment where court’s decree ordered
distribution of husband’s pension under terms not permitted by pension plan
and was thus legally impossible to carry out as court had ordered).
[11] Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Alma demonstrated a
meritorious claim, she is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because she
did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that resulted from something
other than her fault or negligence. James asserts that Alma was provided
information regarding the NEAP account prior to the final hearing and that she
had ample time to obtain further information concerning the rules and
procedures applicable to the account. Alma does not suggest otherwise and has
not shown that these circumstances were not a result of her fault or negligence.
And she has offered no extraordinary circumstances that would invoke the
court’s equitable powers under Rule 60(B)(8). Thus, while this situation may be
less than desirable for Alma, it does not amount to extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief under Rule 60(B)(8).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 6 of 7 Conclusion [12] We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Alma’s Trial
Rule 60 motion or when it denied her related motion to correct error.
[13] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Carl Paul Lamb Carl Lamb & Associates, PC Bloomington, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Kendra G. Gjerdingen Mallor Grodner LLP Bloomington, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 7 of 7