ILNews

Court rejects claims of fraud from trust beneficiary's children

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that two siblings who have accused their mother of fraud with regard to a family trust account did not present any material issue of fact to support their argument.

In Julie R. Waterfield Irrevocable Trust Agreement Dated October 21, 1997; Richard R. Waterfield and J. Randall Waterfield v. The Trust Company of Oxford and Julie R. Waterfield, No. 49A04-1103-TR-95, Julie Waterfield is the sole beneficiary of a trust created by her parents. After Julie Waterfield’s death, her sons, Richard and Randall Waterfield, would receive annual distributions from a “pour-over” trust in the amount of $25,000 each.

Julie Waterfield’s mother, Ruth Rhinehart, made a $1.5 million pledge from the trust, and Rhinehart’s attorney and financial adviser told her that she would need to reform the trust in order to accomplish her objectives. Julie Waterfield obtained signatures from Richard and Randall, as required to reform the trust.

The two men claimed that Julie Waterfield fraudulently obtained their signatures, but the COA held that their claims for fraud and constructive fraud are not supported by any evidence of actual injury. The appellate court also held that the men had been unable to prove that their distributions from a pour-over trust would in any way be affected by the reformation of Julie Waterfield’s trust. The COA affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Julie Waterfield and The Trust Company of Oxford.

 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT