ILNews

Defendants in will contest must timely answer

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals has held that a will contest is a civil action and a defendant in this type of action is required to file an answer or plead to a complaint as provided by the state’s trial rules.

Siblings Rod and Marshall Avery appealed the default judgment against them in a will contest initiated by their sister Trina Avery. Trina served the brothers with summonses and copies of the complaint with Trial Rule 4. Neither brother appeared, answered, or pleaded in the will contest, and Trina filed a motion for default judgment. The brothers filed a motion to dismiss, claiming they didn’t have to file an answer. The trial court entered default judgment against them.

In Rod L. Avery, et al. v. Trina R. Avery, No. 49A05-1004-PL-320, the appellate court had to decide whether interested parties to a will contest are required to file an answer to the complaint. The Probate Code is silent on this issue, but the judges looked to Robinson v. Estate of Hardin, 587 N.E.2d 683, 685 (Ind. 1992), which held that Trial Rules 4 through 4.16 are applicable to will contests as well as Trial Rule 7(A).

“Again, a will contest is separate from the administration of an estate, and the executor and ‘all other persons beneficially interested in the will’ are made defendants in a will contest. See I.C. § 29-1-7-17,” wrote Judge Edward Najam. “Accordingly, we hold that, as with any civil complaint, a defendant in a will contest is required to file an answer or otherwise plead within the time provided under Trial Rule 6.”

The judges declined to hold that Indiana Code Section 29-1-1-10 applies to probate proceedings related to will contests. That section applies to proceedings related to the administration of a decedent’s estate, wrote Judge Najam.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. That comment on this e-site, which reports on every building, courtroom or even insignificant social movement by beltway sycophants as being named to honor the yet-quite-alive former chief judge, is truly laughable!

  2. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  3. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

  4. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  5. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

ADVERTISEMENT