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

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. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

  2. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  3. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

  4. My dear Smith, I was beginning to fear, from your absense, that some Obrien of the Nanny State had you in Room 101. So glad to see you back and speaking truth to power, old chum.

  5. here is one from Reason magazine. these are not my words, but they are legitimate concerns. http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc quote: "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds, has issued a new "intelligence report" announcing that "an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) to 512 (127 of them militias) -- a 244% jump." To illustrate how dangerous these groups are, the Center cites some recent arrests of right-wing figures for planning or carrying out violent attacks. But it doesn't demonstrate that any of the arrestees were a part of the Patriot milieu, and indeed it includes some cases involving racist skinheads, who are another movement entirely. As far as the SPLC is concerned, though, skinheads and Birchers and Glenn Beck fans are all tied together in one big ball of scary. The group delights in finding tenuous ties between the tendencies it tracks, then describing its discoveries in as ominous a tone as possible." --- I wonder if all the republicans that belong to the ISBA would like to know who and why this outfit was called upon to receive such accolades. I remember when they were off calling Trent Lott a bigot too. Preposterous that this man was brought to an overwhelmingly republican state to speak. This is a nakedly partisan institution and it was a seriously bad choice.

ADVERTISEMENT