ILNews

Man had 3 months to bring claim to enforce contract, court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A son who sought to challenge his stepmother’s decision to revoke the will she made with his father had to bring his challenge within three months of the will being admitted to probate, not nine months as he claimed, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

David Markey was the only child of John and Betty Markey. When his mother died, her assets went to her husband. He later married Frances Markey, and they executed a contract in 1998 to make mutual wills. Half of their estate would go to Frances Markey’s granddaughter, the other half would go to David Markey. The contract also said the wills would not be revoked, and if they were, David Markey could bring an action at law or in equity seeking performance. Frances’ adult children, Stephen Routson and Madonna Reda, were not aware of this contract.

After John Markey died, Frances Markey inherited all of his assets and then revoked her will. She died in July 2012 and her estate was opened in August 2012. David Markey, who claimed he didn’t learn she had died until April 2013, brought his action to enforce the terms of the contract that month – eight months after the will was admitted to probate.

Reda argued that the action was time barred because it was filed more than three months after the will was admitted to probate; David Markey argued that he had timely filed his action within nine months of Frances Markey’s death because he was a “reasonably ascertainable creditor” under I.C. 29-1-7-7(d)(2).

The trial court, citing Kennan v. Butler, 869 N.E. 2d 1284 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), ruled the action to enforce a contract to make a will was not a “claim” under I.C. 29-1-14-1 of the Probate Code. It pointed to a footnote in the ruling that said “for timely administration of an estate, a breach of contract to make a will action should be similarly limited. Where the action is challenging the distribution pursuant to a probated will, the petition must be filed within three months of the order admitting the will to probate.”

In David J. Markey v. Estate of Frances S. Markey, Deceased; Stephen L. Routson, Personal Representative under the Last Will and Testament of Frances S. Markey, Deceased; Stephen L. Routson, et al., the COA agreed that the footnote in Keenan is directly applicable in a case such as David Markey’s, so it correctly determined that the three-month limitation period for such actions suggested in the footnote applies to David Markey’s action.

The judges rejected his claim that the three-month limitation period for will contest actions would violate his due process rights.

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT