ILNews

Inlow heirs accuse Fifth Third, Hall Render of fraud

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bitter battle between the heirs of former Conseco Inc. executive Lawrence Inlow and the bank and attorneys overseeing his estate will get a hearing Friday in Hamilton County Court.

The Inlow children and their attorneys say they’re being defrauded by Fifth Third Bank, the fiduciary of the estate, and its law firm, Indianapolis-based Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C., “who strive endlessly to drain the Estate of every last dime,” according to a petition filed in June.

According to that document, Fifth Third has paid itself and Hall Render about $1.5 million in fees since Fifth Third was selected by the Inlow children in 2000. Hall Render has filed petitions claiming it is owed another $760,873 for work performed since 2004.

But the Inlows and their law firm, Indianapolis-based Frank & Kraft, have challenged the release of those funds for six years. Marvin Frank, one of the attorneys that represents Jason, Jeremy and Sarah Inlow, and their sister Heather Johnson, declined to comment.

Inlow was chief counsel for Carmel-based Conseco when he was killed by a helicopter rotor in a 1997 accident. His estate was valued at $180 million when he died, and the heirs all received distributions of money following an April 2004 agreement. The Inlows now believe only $600,000 remains in the estate -- more than the fees sought by Hall Render.

But Hall Render attorney David Honig said the fault lies with the Inlows and their lawyers, who have filed a string of legal actions against Fifth Third while at the same time refusing to pay.

“Other than fee petitions, neither Hall Render or Fifth Third have initiated any of the litigation that has extended this case for the past three years,” Honig said in an interview.

At the 9 a.m. hearing Friday before Hamilton Superior Judge Steve Nation, Honig plans to argue that the Inlows’ latest claims have already been decided by a December ruling in Marion County Court, where legal issues about the Inlow heirs’ trusts were decided.

On Dec. 31, 2009, then-Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled that some of Hall Render’s disputed legal work was legitimate and deserved reimbursement.

“We do not like being accused of theft and fraud, particularly when those accusations have been heard in open court and found to be false,” Honig said.

The Inlow heirs and Frank & Kraft have been formally trying to remove Fifth Third as the estate’s representative since April 2009, according to documents that had been under seal in Hamilton County Court.

They argued that Fifth Third had failed to post a required bond and had become a different company after it merged with other banks following its selection by the Inlows. Those arguments were rejected by Judge Nation last year.

But before they were, the Inlows filed a new claim, saying that Fifth Third had proved itself unsuitable as a fiduciary of the estate because it failed to file proper accounting of the estate’s assets and had obtained fees under false pretenses.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT