ILNews

Man didn't timely file petition to reopen estates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court correctly denied the request to reopen the estates of a man's deceased parents to correct an error because he failed to timely file his petition, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In In the Matter of the Estates of Obed Kalwitz, Sr., and Helen Kalwitz; Eugene Kalwitz v. Sharon Grieger, No. 46A03-0911-CV-546, Eugene Kalwitz filed a petition to reopen the estates of his parents after discovering a mistake in the personal representatives' deed conveying land. Based on a settlement reached between Kalwitz and his sister, Sharon Grieger, both personal representatives of the estates, Kalwitz was solely to receive the land. But the parties didn't read the document before signing it and it conveyed the property to Kalwitz and Grieger.

They filed their verified final account and petition for authority to distribute the remaining assets and to close the estates in August 2007. Kalwitz discovered the error in December 2008 and filed his petition to reopen the estates alleging a scrivener's error in March 2009. The trial court entered summary judgment for Grieger on Kalwitz's petition, finding it was untimely as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeals had to decide which statute applies: Indiana Code Section 29-1-17-13, which has a one-year statute of limitations, or I.C. Section 39-1-17-14(a), which has a general six-year statute of limitations.

Section 13 requires the petitioner to allege misconduct, though not necessarily liability, on the part of a personal representative and must be brought within one year of the date of discharge. Section 14 applies only to assets unadministered in the original order for the final settlement of an estate.

Kalwitz sought to reopen the estates under Section 14 to correct a scrivener's error, but the real estate was distributed by the deed in the former administration of the estates. As such, he can't use Section 14 to collaterally attack final judgment on an already administered asset, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

"It is important to emphasize that Eugene was not without a remedy for his allegation. But his remedy, if any, was under Section 13," he wrote.

He had to have filed his petition within one year of the date of discharge, which he failed to do. The trial court was correct in granting summary judgment for Grieger.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT