Estate of Kelly Ecker, by its Personal Representative, Patricia Ann Leturgez v. Estate of George Scott Samson
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 315
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- George Samson shot and killed his wife, Kelly Ecker, then killed himself; Samson’s probate estate was opened and later converted to supervised administration.
- Kelly Ecker’s estate (Ecker Estate) filed a $5,000,000 wrongful-death claim against the Samson Estate; other claimants included the decedent’s minor child and ex-wife.
- The parties stipulated that several retirement accounts were nonprobate and not available to pay estate creditors; the disputed asset was a single-participant Profit Sharing Plan worth about $567,065.
- The Ecker Estate sought recovery of the Profit Sharing Plan proceeds to satisfy estate claims, arguing the decedent ‘‘had the power, acting alone, to prevent transfer’’ under Indiana Code § 32-17-13-1(a).
- The Samson Daughters (named beneficiaries) argued the Plan fell within the exclusion in § 32-17-13-1(b) (individual retirement accounts/employee benefit plans) and therefore was not recoverable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Samson Daughters and denied the Ecker Estate’s motion; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ecker) | Defendant's Argument (Samson Daughters) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Profit Sharing Plan was a "nonprobate transfer" subject to recovery under I.C. § 32-17-13-1(a) | George had sole power to revoke/terminate the Plan, so proceeds are a nonprobate transfer recoverable to pay estate claims | Even if decedent had control, the Plan is an employee-retirement/profit-sharing plan excluded from recovery under § 32-17-13-1(b) | Held for Samson Daughters: Plan is excluded as an individual/employee retirement plan and not recoverable |
| Whether courts should limit § 32-17-13-1(b) because plan had only one employee (the decedent) | Ecker: single-participant plans should not be sheltered from creditors; cites policy in Yates v. Hendon regarding working-owner participants | Samson Daughters: statute’s exclusion is clear and applies regardless of number of participants; judicially adding restrictions is improper | Held: statutory language is unambiguous; court may not add restrictions; Yates (ERISA context) is not controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- Yates v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1 (2004) (discussed working-owner participation in ERISA plans; not controlling for Indiana probate statute interpretation)
- Siwinski v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 949 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. 2011) (court must give ordinary and plain meaning to an unambiguous statute)
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2013) (courts cannot add restrictions to a statute by judicial construction)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and allocation of burdens)