In re Unsupervised Estate of Cary A. Owsley, Logan A. Owsley v. Mark E. Gorbett
87 N.E.3d 44
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Cary Owsley died from a gunshot in 2013; Bartholomew Circuit Court opened and later closed his estate, appointing Lisa Owsley as personal representative and ultimately assigning any interest the estate had in federal litigation to Cary’s son, Logan.
- Logan filed a federal § 1983/§ 1985 civil-rights suit alleging a cover-up and interference with access to courts; he later sought to be appointed personal representative in Marion County solely to pursue that federal suit on behalf of the estate.
- Bartholomew Circuit Court, in a February 16, 2016 order, assigned to Logan "whatever interest the Estate of Cary A. Owsley has in the federal lawsuit" and closed the Bartholomew estate.
- Marion Superior Court appointed Logan as personal representative for an unsupervised administration limited to the federal lawsuit, and the federal court accepted that status pending resolution of the state-court order.
- Defendants in the federal suit moved to intervene in the Marion probate matter and to vacate the Marion court’s order; Marion Superior Court later vacated Logan’s letters, holding the decedent has no post-mortem constitutional rights and the alleged civil-rights claims are not estate assets, and dismissed the Marion probate proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the Marion County estate proceeding opened so Logan could pursue federal civil-rights claims on behalf of the decedent’s estate | Logan: Civil-rights claims for conspiracy and denial of access (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986) are property of the decedent’s estate and may be pursued by the estate; Marion court should have left his letters in place | Appellees: The decedent never had cognizable constitutional rights after death; the estate had no interest in Logan’s federal suit; Bartholomew orders controlled venue/administration and Marion lacked an estate asset to administer | The court affirmed dismissal: claims based on alleged post-death cover-up are not assets of the decedent’s estate; decedent has no constitutional rights after death, so Marion did not abuse discretion in vacating letters and dismissing the proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Love v. Bolinger, 927 F. Supp. 1131 (S.D. Ind. 1996) (cover-up after death cannot violate decedent’s constitutional rights; victims are survivors, not the decedent)
- Whitehurst v. Wright, 592 F.2d 834 (5th Cir. 1979) (after death one is no longer a person within constitutional framework)
- Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510 (7th Cir. 1990) (cover-up victims are decedent’s survivors; decedent lacks post-mortem constitutional rights)
- Guyton v. Phillips, 606 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1979) (civil-rights statutes do not provide a cause of action on behalf of a deceased for violations occurring after death)
- Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984) (discusses scope of civil-rights claims arising from pre-death government misconduct)