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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT