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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT