ILNews

Judges affirm decision in familial dispute over insurance funds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Nathaniel Kappel died, it led to a dispute in the family as to who is entitled to insurance payouts on policies that Nathaniel Kappel and his brother William took out on each other in 1996. The Court of Appeals agreed with the probate court that Nathaniel Kappel’s estate is not entitled to funds from either man’s policy.

Nathaniel and William Kappel farmed together and created an agreement in 1973 that spelled out the terms of their partnership and the value of the partnership. Both men took out an insurance policy on the other valued at $50,000 in the event of one’s death. In 1996, the two took out $750,000 insurance policies on the other, but did not add those policies into the original agreement.

Nathaniel Kappel died in March 2004. The estate sought to recover the $750,000 paid on the State Life policy insuring Nathaniel Kappel’s life. Those efforts failed, so the estate filed a petition to marshal assets. William Kappel, along with his wife, Judith, and son, Mark, filed various claims against the estate. The estate countersued claiming conversion of the First Colony policy funds Nathaniel Kappel took out on William Kappel.

The probate court denied the estate recovery of the insurance proceeds, ordered William and Mark Kappel to withdraw their claims, and denied William and Judith Kappel's complaint for contribution as to a mortgage and taxes on the brothers’ farmland filed by the father and son.

In In the Matter of the Estate of Nathaniel Kappel v. William Kappel, Judith Kappel, and Mark Kappel, 32A01-1111-ES-526, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the $750,000 proceeds from the State Life policy are not property of the estate. The estate claimed pursuant to the 1973 agreement that money was to go to the estate, and William Kappel’s failure to pay it was a breach of contract and conversion.

The probate court found the 1973 agreement was abandoned because the brothers welcomed a third party into the farming operation and did not annually update the partnership valuation as contemplated by the agreement. The Court of Appeals ruled that the estate couldn’t establish the probate court’s decision was a clear error.

There was also no error in the decision finding that William and Judith Kappel did not convert the proceeds of the First Colony policy. The evidence showed that Nathaniel Kappel applied to liquidate the policy on his brother’s life and that money was deposited into the farm’s account to address the mounting losses of the partnership. There was a question as to the validity of the signature on the insurance check.

The COA also denied the estate’s request to remand the matter for a jury trial and affirmed the decision by the probate court to deny attorney fees to William, Judith and Mark Kappel. There’s no evidence to show the estate pursued the litigation in bad faith.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT