Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98 (2026)

"Property"

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 98. (a) "Property", for purposes of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act under IC 31-11-3, has the meaning set forth in IC 31-11-3-3.

(b) "Property", for purposes of IC 31-15, IC 31-16, and IC 31-17, means all the assets of either party or both parties, including:

(1) a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits;

(2) the right to receive pension or retirement benefits that are not forfeited upon termination of employment or that are vested (as defined in Section 411 of the Internal Revenue Code) but that are payable after the dissolution of marriage; and

(3) the right to receive disposable retired or retainer pay (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 1408(a)) acquired during the marriage that is or may be payable after the dissolution of marriage.

[Pre-1997 Recodification Citations: subsection (a) formerly 31-7-2.5-3 part; subsection (b) formerly 31-1-11.5-2(e).]

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 16× “) The trial court considered this value a contention instead of evidence because Charles limited his response to arguing that the premiums did not constitute property (he did not address the question of valuation).”

Bizik v. Bizik, 753 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “Therefore, because this section of our Dissolution of Marriage Act permits the inclusion of certain pension-type interests in the marital pot for division, we must determine whether Dan's Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan is "property" that falls within any of the…”

Marriage of Dowden v. Allman, 696 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 18× “Indiana Code § 31-9-2-98 defines "property" for the purposes of dissolution as: "(b) .”

Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Indiana Code § 31-9-2-98(b) provides, in pertinent part: *461 “Property”, for purposes of IC 31-15 [regarding dissolution], IC 31-16, and IC 31-17, means all the assets of either party or both parties, including: (1) a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits[.”

Beckley v. Beckley, 822 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 2005). · cites it 7× “00 settlement that was reached includes more than future lost wages, the settlement is in fact a marital asset pursuant to Indiana Code 31-9-2-98." Appellant's App.”

Helm v. Helm, 873 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Indiana *88 Code section 31-9-2-98 provides, in relevant part, that ‘[property’ .”

Granzow v. Granzow, 855 N.E.2d 680 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “An asset must first constitute marital property as defined under Indiana Code Section 31-9-2-98 before it requires valuation.”

Jennifer R. Quinn v. Daniel P. Quinn, 62 N.E.3d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 31-9-2-98. “The requirement that all marital assets be placed in the marital pot is meant to insure that the trial court first determines that value before endeavoring to divide the property.”

In Re the Marriage of Nickels, 834 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 31-9-2-98(b) (1998); Beckley v.”

Akers v. Akers, 729 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “1998); see also Ind.Code § 31-9-2-98 (defining “property” for purposes of dissolution as “all the assets of either party or both parties”).”

Severs v. Severs, 837 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 2005). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 31-9-2-98(b). Indiana appellate courts have considered whether various forms of disability payments were marital property, but no case has specifically addressed social security disability benefits.”

Amy L. Falatovics v. Imre L. Falatovics, 15 N.E.3d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 31-9-2-98 (emphasis added). “The requirement that all marital assets be placed in the marital pot is meant to insure that the trial court first determines that value before endeavoring to divide property.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98(3) — 1 case

Samuel W. Koonce v. Kim M. Finney, 68 N.E.3d 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

— Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98(b) — 16 cases

Bingley v. Bingley, 935 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 2010). “) The trial court considered this value a contention instead of evidence because Charles limited his response to arguing that the premiums did not constitute property (he did not address the question of valuation).”

Hill v. Hill, 863 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Indiana Code § 31-9-2-98(b) provides, in pertinent part: *461 “Property”, for purposes of IC 31-15 [regarding dissolution], IC 31-16, and IC 31-17, means all the assets of either party or both parties, including: (1) a present right to withdraw pension or retirement benefits[.”

Bizik v. Bizik, 753 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, because this section of our Dissolution of Marriage Act permits the inclusion of certain pension-type interests in the marital pot for division, we must determine whether Dan's Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan is "property" that falls within any of the…”

Beckley v. Beckley, 822 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 2005). “00 settlement that was reached includes more than future lost wages, the settlement is in fact a marital asset pursuant to Indiana Code 31-9-2-98." Appellant's App.”

In Re the Marriage of Nickels, 834 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Ind.Code § 31-9-2-98(b) (1998); Beckley v.”

— Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98(b)(1) — 3 cases

Bingley v. Bingley, 915 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

In the Matter of the Marriage of: Carolyn Burns v. Michael Burns (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Marvin Creech v. Jill Creech (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

— Ind. Code § 31-9-2-98(b)(2) — 5 cases

Marriage of Elkins v. Elkins, 763 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Wyzard v. Wyzard, 771 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

Marriage of Dowden v. Allman, 696 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “Indiana Code § 31-9-2-98 defines "property" for the purposes of dissolution as: "(b) .”

Bingley v. Bingley, 915 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.