Contact

Mercantile Bank v. Underwood, 2009 WL 1384864 (Ind.App. May 18, 2009) (trial rule 21(A) misjoinder of parties applies in trust litigation; journey's account statute preserved claim).

Estate of Prickett v. Womersley, 885 N.E.2d 619 (Ind.App. 2008), transfer granted 2009 WL 1351823 (Ind. May 13, 2009) (daughter's services to parent under guardianship presumed gratuitous; daughter had to show ward intended to pay, and she expected compensation; Court re-affirms the concept that a guardianship does not preclude a ward from executing a will, citing Harrison v. Bishop, 30 N.E. 1069, 1071 (Ind. 1892); Court cites I.C. § 29-3-8-5(b) that "Every contract, sale, or conveyance executed by a protected person is void....", but then approved of Court of Appeals language in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 773 N.E.2d at 355 that "an implied contract can exist between the protected person and provider of services," such as where lawyers might "recover compensation for services rendered [to a ward], as for necessaries, if such services are faithfully and intelligently performed.")

Zoeller v. East Chicago, 904 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2009) (adoption of the Trust Code did not abrogate, and instead codified, the common law view of the Attorney General's authority with respect to public charitable trusts; plaintiff can assert claims for both unjust enrichment and a constructive trust).

Guardianship of ALC, 902 N.E.2d 343 (Ind.App. 2009) (trial court has discretion to overlook priority person and appoint guardian in best interests of ward; trial court could not use parent visitation schedule for grandparents).

In re Cochran Trust, 901 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind.App. 2009) (trustee acted in accordance with settlor's intent and as a prudent fiduciary by exchanging life insurance policies, even though subsequent premature death cost heirs millions).

Warren v. IOOF Cemetery, 901 N.E.2d 615 (Ind.App. 2009) (Factors relevant to a disinterment decision include: (1) whether the initial resting place was made with deliberation and without mental reservation that at some future time removal might be desired, (2) whether there are evidences of antagonism and hostility between the surviving spouse and the owners of the tomb or burial plot such as would prevent the surviving spouse from visiting the grave freely and without embarrassment or humiliation, (3) whether the deceased spouse had evidenced a preference for one location as opposed to another, and (4) whether the disinterment would conflict with the deceased person's religious beliefs).

In re Paternity of Duran, 900 N.E.2d 454 (Ind.App. 2009) (child could not inherit intestate portion of eight million from natural father after being adopted by another; collateral heir who ended up inheriting lacked standing to intervene as of right in paternity action).

Lewis v. Estate of Wynn, 900 N.E.2d 476 (Ind.App. 2009) (executor could not prove surviving wife negligently stored gun that husband used to kill step daughter; wife's contributions to joint account not subject to claims).

Ramirez v. Wilson, 901 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.App. 2009) (full-term, viable, unborn fetus was not a "child" for purposes of child wrongful death statute).

Bank One v. Surber, 899 N.E.2d 693 (Ind.App. 2009) (Bank did not pay surviving joint bank account holder and instead paid account to decedent's estate out of confusion of ownership; heirs settled separately which did not release bank; trial court found bank acted negligently and breached contract by not paying surviving joint account holder money, and awarded damages that included amount of account she did not receive by way of the settlement, and all of her attorney fees fighting with the heirs. In effect the trial court required the bank to pay twice. The Court of Appeals reversed on this point and held the bank entitled to a set off. In footnote: "We think it significant to note Bank One's failure to seek interpleader under Indiana Trial Rule 22. Had Bank One sought interpleader, it could have deposited the funds of the Account with the probate court. Bank One then would have been discharged from liability and not incurred the substantial attorney fees it no doubt has incurred in litigating this action." The Court of Appeals affirmed damages for the attorney fees Surber spent (not paid by the estate). The elements of this third party litigation exception are: (1) the plaintiff became involved in a legal dispute because of the defendant's breach of contract or other wrongful act; (2) the litigation was with a third party and not the defendant; and (3) the fees were incurred in the third-party litigation).

In re Paternity of N.L.P., 898 N.E.2d 403 (Ind.App. 2009) (guardian ad litem in fee petition must separate time spent on legal matters and time spent on routine guardianship administration matters).