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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT