ILNews

Court of Appeals upholds Miller estate decision

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has sided with former Columbus, Ind., banker Will Miller in an estate battle launched by his older brother, Hugh.

In an opinion issued Thursday, Power of Attorney of Xenia S. Miller, et al. v. William Irwin Miller and Sarla Kals, No. 03A01-0912-CV-586, the court said Will Miller was correct to spend more than $20 million over 3-1/2 years on the upkeep of properties owned by the wealthy Columbus family.

The brothers are heirs to a fortune built over generations through the defunct Irwin Union Bank and Trust and diesel engine-maker Cummins Inc. Their parents, J. Irwin and Xenia Miller, were major philanthropists, noted for bringing world-reknowned modern art and architecture to their hometown.

The court's opinion led off with a quote from "The Tempest" by William Shakespeare: "What's past is prologue..." The line speaks to the question of whether Will and family financial adviser Sarla Kalsi, as Xenia's personal representatives, properly interpreted her wishes. Xenia was incompetent when J. Irwin died in 2004, but Will and Kalsi continued to spend huge sums on the upkeep of family properties, which they argued was in keeping with the Millers' long-established practice.

Hugh Miller contested the estate's spending in Bartholomew Superior Court. He argued that $2.7 million of the spending was more to the benefit of Will and Kalsi than Xenia, who died in 2008. The lower court sided with Will Miller, going so far as to grant payment of his attorney fees. Hugh appealed.

Although it upheld the lower court's ruling on the estate spending, the appellate court reversed the decision on attorney fees, saying Hugh's claim was not frivolous.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT