ILNews

High court rules on estate issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on a matter of first impression today regarding the disposition of an entire estate during life or death.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of E.N., Adult,No. 88S01-0703-CV-121, deals with the issue of whether the guardianship estate planning statute authorizes dispositions of a protected person's entire estate, not just "excess" assets, as defined in the statute.

In this case, E.N. married and had two children - Shirley and Marvin. He executed a will in 1983 and another in 1992 naming his wife, Shirley, Marvin and their children as beneficiaries.

E.N.'s wife filed for divorce in 1997, and E.N. then lived with his two brothers. That year, and again in 1999, E.N. drafted two more wills, this time leaving his entire estate to his brothers and specifically disinheriting his children.

E.N. suffered from Alzheimer's disease, and the court named his daughter and son as co-guardians. In 1999, E.N. executed a new will, naming his children as sole beneficiaries of his estate; he testified he did not want his brothers to be beneficiaries.

In 2002, Shirley petitioned the guardianship court to implement an estate plan on E.N.'s behalf under Indiana Code 29-3-9-4, the guardianship estate planning statute. The plan was to move everything to a revocable trust with Marvin as trustee. E.N.'s brothers objected to the plan.

The guardianship court ruled in favor of Shirley, ruling E.N. was not competent to make the 1997 or 1999 wills, and it was reasonable E.N. would want his children to receive the bulk of the estate, with a small portion going to his brothers.

After E.N. died in 2004, his children petitioned the court to probate his 1999 will; his brothers objected, citing the guardianship court's ruling that will was invalid. Later, the children petitioned in probate court to probate the 1983 will.

The guardianship court terminated the guardianship "in all respects except as to those matters presently on appeal" in 2005. The Court of Appeals affirmed the guardianship court's approval of the estate plan.

The Supreme Court today reversed the guardianship court's October 2003 order approving the guardian's modified estate plan. For several reasons, Justice Theodore Boehm wrote that the Indiana legislature didn't authorize transfers of someone's entire estate during life or death. The statute in question allows a guardian to dispose of "excess" principal or income, but E.N.'s trust disposed of all of his assets. If the legislature had intended to authorize dispositions at death, it would have authorized wills, trusts, or other estate planning tools to allow it.

Indiana Code 29-1-5-8 provides that with the exception of revocation upon divorce, no written will or any part of it can be changed or revoked because of the condition of the testator. The estate plan effectively revoked E.N.'s valid will, wrote Justice Boehm.

"The legislature is certainly free to authorize guardians to dispose of all property at the protected person's death, but as of now it has not done so," he wrote.

Because the estate plan was not authorized by the guardianship estate planning statute, it must be disapproved, regardless of the validity of E.N.'s prior wills. The validity remains a matter for the probate court to consider under the will contest statutes. The case is remanded with instructions to close the guardianship by reason of E.N.'s death and the disposition of his estate remains a matter for probate court to decide.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT