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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT