Sullivan, J.
When Sean and Dee Anna Ryan divorced, they agreed to sell two properties they owned and divide the proceeds, subject to a proviso that neither party was required to accept a sale yielding net proceeds below specified minimums. When the properties could not be sold at or above the specified minimums, Dee Anna refused to waive the proviso. She was entitled by law to do so.
….
Sean is not entitled to relief under Trial Rule 60(B).
….
We think the legal culture in Indiana is past the point where we could realistically say that Trial Rule 60(B) is not available when a dispute arises over a settlement agreement or property-division order. But we do offer several concluding observations in this regard.
Like all of our Trial Rules, Trial Rule 60(B) is a rule of procedure; it does not confer any substantive right on a party that invokes it. While courts sometimes say that Trial Rule 60(B) “gives courts equitable power,” that is not strictly true. Rather, Trial Rule 60(B) gives the court a procedural mechanism to exercise power that it derives from substantive law: from equity, or from common law, or from a statute, or from a constitution. [Footnote omitted.] This is important because it means that a court’s exercise of power under Trial Rule 60(B) is subject to the limitations of the substantive law itself.
We think it unlikely that a court can invoke equity to overcome the mandate of a statute including, in particular, the statutory prohibitions on courts modifying settlement agreements and property-division orders that we have been discussing in this opinion. But this does not always oust the court from modifying a settlement agreement or property-division order; it only prevents the court from doing so in the exercise of equity. We think that the purpose of the statutory prohibitions on modification – and we think the case law strongly reinforces this – requires a court to approach any dispute over a settlement agreement or property-division order as a contract dispute, subject to the rules of contract law. If there is an ambiguity in a contract, contract law provides the rules for resolving it. See, e.g., Whitaker v. Brunner, 814 N.E.2d 288, 293-94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied; 2 E. Allan Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts § 7.8 (3d ed. 2004 & Supp. 2012). If there is a mutual mistake, contract law provides the rules for resolving it. See, e.g., Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Rest. Hospitality Ass’n of Ind., 898 N.E.2d 419, 425-426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied; 2 Farnsworth, supra, § 9.3. If the contract becomes impossible to perform, contract law provides rules for handling the situation. See, e.g., Marcovich Land Corp. v. J.J. Newberry Co., 413 N.E.2d 935, 942 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980), trans. denied; 2 Farnsworth, supra, § 9.5. [Footnote omitted.]
We conclude by saying that, in writing this opinion, we have been struck by the recurrence of several fact patterns that have been avoidably problematic – the use of specific dollar amounts rather than percentages, the failure of a QDRO’s terms to conform to ERISA requirements, the failure to provide a contingency if the marital residence cannot be sold – and trust that practitioners and judges alike will contemplate them in their work as well.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Dickson, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.