ILNews

High court rules on estate issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on a matter of first impression today regarding the disposition of an entire estate during life or death.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of E.N., Adult,No. 88S01-0703-CV-121, deals with the issue of whether the guardianship estate planning statute authorizes dispositions of a protected person's entire estate, not just "excess" assets, as defined in the statute.

In this case, E.N. married and had two children - Shirley and Marvin. He executed a will in 1983 and another in 1992 naming his wife, Shirley, Marvin and their children as beneficiaries.

E.N.'s wife filed for divorce in 1997, and E.N. then lived with his two brothers. That year, and again in 1999, E.N. drafted two more wills, this time leaving his entire estate to his brothers and specifically disinheriting his children.

E.N. suffered from Alzheimer's disease, and the court named his daughter and son as co-guardians. In 1999, E.N. executed a new will, naming his children as sole beneficiaries of his estate; he testified he did not want his brothers to be beneficiaries.

In 2002, Shirley petitioned the guardianship court to implement an estate plan on E.N.'s behalf under Indiana Code 29-3-9-4, the guardianship estate planning statute. The plan was to move everything to a revocable trust with Marvin as trustee. E.N.'s brothers objected to the plan.

The guardianship court ruled in favor of Shirley, ruling E.N. was not competent to make the 1997 or 1999 wills, and it was reasonable E.N. would want his children to receive the bulk of the estate, with a small portion going to his brothers.

After E.N. died in 2004, his children petitioned the court to probate his 1999 will; his brothers objected, citing the guardianship court's ruling that will was invalid. Later, the children petitioned in probate court to probate the 1983 will.

The guardianship court terminated the guardianship "in all respects except as to those matters presently on appeal" in 2005. The Court of Appeals affirmed the guardianship court's approval of the estate plan.

The Supreme Court today reversed the guardianship court's October 2003 order approving the guardian's modified estate plan. For several reasons, Justice Theodore Boehm wrote that the Indiana legislature didn't authorize transfers of someone's entire estate during life or death. The statute in question allows a guardian to dispose of "excess" principal or income, but E.N.'s trust disposed of all of his assets. If the legislature had intended to authorize dispositions at death, it would have authorized wills, trusts, or other estate planning tools to allow it.

Indiana Code 29-1-5-8 provides that with the exception of revocation upon divorce, no written will or any part of it can be changed or revoked because of the condition of the testator. The estate plan effectively revoked E.N.'s valid will, wrote Justice Boehm.

"The legislature is certainly free to authorize guardians to dispose of all property at the protected person's death, but as of now it has not done so," he wrote.

Because the estate plan was not authorized by the guardianship estate planning statute, it must be disapproved, regardless of the validity of E.N.'s prior wills. The validity remains a matter for the probate court to consider under the will contest statutes. The case is remanded with instructions to close the guardianship by reason of E.N.'s death and the disposition of his estate remains a matter for probate court to decide.
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT