ILNews

Husband allowed to petition for survivor's allowance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a wife had filed for divorce from her husband at the time she was killed, the husband is still allowed to petition for survivor’s allowance, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Wednesday. The appellate judges cited caselaw from the 1800s to support their decision.

Melissa and Jason Patrick had issues in their marriage, and Melissa filed for divorce. Jason admitted that he also considered divorce, but Melissa filed before him. Jason began a relationship with Sarah Jones, who was divorcing her husband. Jason stayed at Jones’ house a few times a week. Melissa began a relationship with Jones’ ex-husband, who later murdered her when she told him she wanted to end their romantic relationship.

Jason filed a petition of surviving spouse for a statutory allowance pursuant to Indiana Code 29-1-4-1. Melissa’s estate argued that I.C. 29-1-2-14 barred the claim, which says “If either a husband or wife shall have left the other and shall be living at the time of his or her death in adultery, he or she as the case may be shall take no part of the estate or trust of the deceased husband or wife.”

Much of the parties’ arguments and evidence dealt with the “living in adultery” aspect of the statute, but didn’t discuss much of the other element of the statute – abandonment. The appellate court focused on the abandonment element, and cited several cases, including ones from 1829, 1866 and 1916 to conclude that in order to divest Jason of his survivor’s share, the estate was required to prove that he “left” Melissa. This means that he left her “willfully, without justification … with an intention of causing a perpetual separation of the parties,” but he couldn’t have “left” her under I.C. 29-1-2-14 if the parting was mutually agreed upon.

The evidence showed when Melissa filed for dissolution,Jason had been staying at his father’s house. The evidence supports that they separated by mutual consent and he exercised regular visitation with his children. The estate did not prove the element of abandonment, so the trial court did not clearly err in denying the estate’s motion to dismiss Jason’s petition for survivor’s allowance, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander in In the Matter of the Estate of Melissa K. Patrick: Yvonne Griffith v. Jason Patrick, No. 17A03-1104-ES-190.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT