ILNews

Appeals panel: Trust’s real property bequeath by later writing invalid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a mother’s specific gift of real property incorporated into trust documents was an invalid method of willing it to heirs.

The panel affirmed summary judgment in favor of the appellees-petitioners in Linda M. Turner v. Sally A. Kent and Stanley J. Kazlauski, 64A05-1310-TR-510.

Linda Turner is trustee and a beneficiary. She appealed Porter Superior Judge William Alexa’s ruling that when the mother separately wrote a specific gifts form willing real property to Sally Kent and Stanley Kazlauski, this constituted an invalid attempt to incorporate by reference.

“We conclude that the settlor intended the separate writing to be incorporated by reference in to the Trust and, therefore, that it cannot be construed as an amendment to the Trust,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the panel. “We further conclude that the Indiana Trust Code prohibits incorporation by reference of specific gifts of real property and, therefore, that the separate writing is an invalid incorporation by reference. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sally and Stanley.”

The panel wrote it would be up to the trial court to distribute the parcel subject to the equal shares provision of the trust.

Judge Patricia Riley concurred as did Judge Margret Robb, who said she wrote separately, “because I find it unnecessary to determine (mother’s) intention with respect to the Specific Gifts Form in order to reach that conclusion.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT