ILNews

Justices take trust case after hearing arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After hearing arguments June 6 in a dispute over the sale of a family farm, the Indiana Supreme Court has decided to take the case.

The justices granted transfer to Harold O. Fulp Jr. v. Nancy A Gilliland, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Ruth E. Fulp Revocable Trust Dated June 29, 2005, 41S01-1306-TR-426.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in August 2012 that Nancy Gilliland, individually and as successor of the trust, did not tortiously interfere with a contract that Harold Fulp had signed to purchase farmland his mother, Ruth Fulp, owns in a trust. He farmed the land on a rental basis.

The COA also held that Ruth Fulp at age 91 could properly execute a purchase agreement, and the family dynamic was a factor in her agreeing to sell the property below market value.

Ruth was the grantor, trustee and sole lifetime beneficiary of a revocable living trust when she entered into the agreement with her son to sell the land to him. Shortly thereafter, she resigned as trustee and her daughter, Gilliland, as successor trustee, repudiated the purchase agreement.

The justices also granted transfer to one other case last week, Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana, 08S02-1306-CR-423, in which they released an opinion June 14.

View the complete transfer list for the week ending June 14.

 

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