ILNews

Grandchildren not entitled to proceeds of land sale under will

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Monroe Circuit judge did not err in denying a motion by three grandchildren to correct errors in which they claimed that they, instead of their grandmother’s second husband, should have received the proceeds of the sale of land in Bloomington. The Indiana Court of Appeals held the Bloomington residence was adeemed by extinction, so the proceeds of the sale pass to Cora Young’s second husband, Theodore.

In In the Matter of the Supervised Admin. of the Estate of Cora E. Young, deceased; Terry Douthitt, Kelly Douthitt, and Kevin Douthitt v. Theodore R. Young, 53A04-1301-EU-36, grandchildren Terry, Kelly and Kevin Douthitt appealed Judge E. Michael Hoff’s denial of their motion to reconsider. They claimed based on the language in Cora Young’s 1976 will, the proceeds of the sale of property in Bloomington should be distributed to them, not her second husband, at her death.

Cora Young sold her Bloomington property on May 2, 2012; she then purchased another property in Solsberry. She died testate on June 26, 2012. Her will said that she would bequeath certain property to her son, Dennis, upon her death and that the rest and residue of her property would go to Theodore Young. If he didn’t survive her, then any property not attributable to his heirs would go to Dennis Douthitt.

Cora Young’s son died before her and she never changed her will to specifically reference the grandchildren.

Hoff held that the proceeds from the sale of property should be distributed to Theodore Young. Since the property was no longer owned by her at the time of her death, it was adeemed by extinction and the proceeds would go through the residuary clause of the will and go to her husband.

The grandchildren argued that the clause “excepting what m[a]y be the proceeds of any of the items mentioned in item two” clearly excepts the proceeds of the sale from the residuary clause and bequeaths them to their father, Dennis. But the COA found this particular clause was not specific enough to overcome the clear doctrine of ademption by extinction and except the proceeds of the sale of the Bloomington residence out of the residuary clause. The proceeds of the sale must go to the residuary beneficiary named in the will – her husband.



 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT