In Re: The Matter of the Supervised Administration of the Estate of Wayne Lewis Stayback, Joseph Stayback v. Jeffrey Stayback and Julie Warnke
38 N.E.3d 705
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Wayne Stayback created an Irrevocable Living Trust in 2010 funding it with about 75 acres of LaPorte County real estate and related assets; the trust allowed Joseph to operate a paintball business on trust property for life, and upon Wayne’s death assets were to be divided with Joseph having a life estate in the real estate used for the paintball business and the remainder shared among the siblings; after Wayne’s 2011 death, Jeffrey and Julie moved to remove Joseph as trustee and sought dissolution of the Trust; billboard leases on the property generated income paid to Joseph as trustee; Joseph used billboard income to pay property taxes; the trusts’ provisions 3.02 and 3.03 govern use of real estate and distribution of the remainder; the trial court ruled income from billboard leases was to be shared among the siblings and denied dissolution of the Trust, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether billboard leases are within the Trust and how income is distributed | Sunkel: billboard income is within the Trust and should be distributed equally | Appellees: billboard income is not part of the Trust and should be shared | Billboard leases are within the Trust; Joseph entitled to the income for his life estate |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying fees | Sunkel: fee request was properly raised and supported | Appellees: no abuse; fees denied | No abuse; trial court’s denial of fees affirmed |
| Whether the Trust should be dissolved and the property distributed | Sunkel: Trust should continue for Joseph’s life estate | Appellees: Trust should terminate and assets divided among all three | Trust not dissolved; property remains to support Joseph’s life estate; termination not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jewel v. City of Indianapolis, 950 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing factual findings; deference to trial court)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (trust interpretation; standard of review)
- Roy A. Miller & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Hardwoods Corp., 775 N.E.2d 1168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (ambiguity and extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation)
- Baker v. University, 843 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2006) (patent vs latent ambiguity in trusts; extrinsic evidence admissibility)
- Dougherty v. Rogers, 20 N.E. 779 (Ind. 1889) (latent ambiguity doctrine; extrinsic facts may clarify will terms)
- Gladden v. Jolly, 133 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 1956) (life estate cases; construction of trust language)