in a. trust created by his mother should have been included in the marital estate. In holding that it should not have been included, the supreme court noted that the central question was whether the husband’s future interest was so remote that it should not have been included in the marital pot. Id. at 353. Noting that the husband’s interest was subject to a complete defeasance because if he predeceased his mother, he would take nothing under the trust, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the husband was “not presently possessed of any pecuniary value which could have been before the court for disposition.” Id. Accordingly, the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the husband’s remote interest in the trust from the marital pot. Id. See also Fiste, 627 N.E.2d at 1371-72 (<HOLDING>). Here, as in Loeb and Fiste, Wife’s- interests
holding that the deceased defendant trustees wife was a representative of her husbands estate and a proper party for substitution purposes where the wife was the primary distributee of her deceased husbands estate holding that a wife is not liable simply by virtue of the marital relationship for her husbands fraudulent acts holding that husbands obligation to pay premiums on a life insurance policy for five years with wife as the beneficiary was periodic alimony holding that the former husbands property from a noninterspousal gift may not be distributed under section 610751 although use of the former husbands separate property may be awarded to the former wife to satisfy the former husbands child support obligation holding that where husbands grandfather had devised real estatefirst to his wife for life then to their daughter husbands mother for life and then to her child or children in fee husbands remainder interest in the realestate was tooremote to be considered marital property as it was subject to a complete defeasance if he predeceased his mother