ILNews

COA rules in favor of grandchildren in will dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals had to interpret a handwritten will from 1917 in a dispute among those who stood to inherit land in Benton County. The appellate court determined that the trial court properly ruled that John and Karen LeFebre could collectively receive a one-third share in the acreage.

In William Pereira and Joseph McConnell v. Monica Pereira, John LeFebre and Karen LeFebre, 04A05-1205-PL-241, Joseph Sleeper created a will that bequeathed 358 acres of land to his wife and upon her death to Margaret I. McConnell and Joseph W. McConnell, the children of Sleeper’s friend. His will said he wanted the land to pass to any child or children surviving them, “share and share alike in fee simple.” If there are no children, then the land should go to an Indianapolis hospital.

Eva Sleeper died in 1933, survived by Margaret and Joseph W. McConnell. They jointly inherited the second life estate. Joseph W. McConnell died in 1989, survived by Joseph McConnell and Julia McConnell Tarr. Julia McConnell Tarr died in 2007 and was survived by John and Karen LeFebre, referred to in the court opinion as the grandchildren. Margret McConnell died in January 2011 and was survived by adopted daughter Moncia Pereira and biological son William Pereira.

Joseph McConnell and William Pereira filed a complaint to quiet title naming Monica Pereira and the grandchildren. Tarr’s estate moved to intervene. The trial court entered summary judgment, ruling the grandchildren could collectively receive a one-third share in the acreage based on the construction of the will as “contemplat[ing] a generation skipping vesting process so that the death of either Margaret I. Pereira (McConnell) or Joseph W. McConnell establishes the class to which that ancestor’s interest passes and thus closes the class by the ancestor’s death and that both ancestors need not die before the class is determined.”  

Joseph McConnell and William Pereira, referred to as the children in the opinion, appealed. They argued that the will requires that any child of the McConnell siblings must survive both the siblings in order to receive a share and because Tarr didn’t survive her aunt, the grandchildren have no claim to acreage. The grandchildren argued the trial court properly construed the will to provide that Tarr became a vested member of the remainder class at her birth, or at the latest, when her father died.

The COA cited Alsman v. Walters, 184 Ind. 565, 106 N.E. 879 (1914), and Coquillard v. Coquillard, 62 Ind. App., 113 N.E. 474 (1916), in affirming the trial court.

“… we likewise conclude that the devise in fee simple resulted in an immediate gift, with an intervening life estate. The intended class, the McConnell siblings’ children, was identified and had no such child been born, the alternative beneficiary was Methodist Hospital of Indianapolis,” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. “However, the McConnell siblings were not childless. Vesting occurred when the first child in the class was born; however, the class was open and the interest of the first child was subject to diminution of shares to let in others born during the life tenancy. When Julia McConnell Tarr was born, she was a class member. The trial court properly found that she had a vested interest, not contingent upon outliving the last surviving life tenant.”

 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT