84 N.E.3d 666
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Decedent Anil Sarkar executed an inter vivos revocable trust (restated/amended multiple times) that left the bulk of his assets (≈ $2M, including an IRA named to the Trust) to daughter Mili as successor beneficiary; his will largely left residue to the Trust and only clothing/tangible personal property to spouse Dipa.
- At Anil’s death, probate estate appeared nearly insolvent; Dipa filed a petition to docket the Trust and sought to freeze Trust assets (especially challenging the IRA beneficiary designation and claiming spousal allowance rights).
- After the will was admitted to probate, Dipa filed an election to take against the will 5 days after the three‑month statutory deadline; litigation over Trust obligations and estate assets was ongoing at that time.
- Mili moved for summary judgment limited to whether the Trust was the proper beneficiary of the IRA; the trial court granted summary judgment on that narrow issue and declared all issues resolved but did not rule on Dipa’s election or its timeliness.
- Dipa moved to amend her petition to assert her elective‑share claim against Trust assets; the trial court denied the motion as prejudicial and later struck a renewed election; Dipa appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dipa) | Defendant's Argument (Mili) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Dipa’s election to take against the will timely? | Election filed June 16, 2015 was timely under IC §29‑1‑3‑2(b) because litigation was pending that could affect the elective share. | Election was untimely under IC §29‑1‑3‑2(a) because it was filed after the three‑month deadline. | Held timely under §29‑1‑3‑2(b); litigation pending tolled deadline until 30 days after final determination. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by denying leave to amend to allege elective‑share claim against the Trust? | Amendment should be allowed; the election is statutory and amendment merely brings issues before the court; no undue prejudice. | Denial proper because amendment was prejudicial, late (discovery/summary deadline passed), and futile. | Trial court abused its discretion; amendment should have been allowed to present all issues. |
| Was summary judgment on the IRA beneficiary (Trust) proper and dispositive of all issues? | Dipa did not challenge narrow ruling on IRA but argued entry ignoring elective claim was error. | Mili obtained summary judgment on the IRA and contends that disposes issues. | Partial summary judgment on IRA beneficiary affirmed; but summary judgment cannot dispose of elective‑share issues that remain. |
| Are Trust assets reachable to satisfy a surviving spouse’s elective share as a matter of law? | Dipa contends Trust may be invalid/testamentary in effect and thus reachable to satisfy elective share. | Mili contends a valid inter vivos trust is not part of probate estate and cannot be invaded for elective share. | Fact issue remains whether Trust was testamentary in nature or intended to defeat spouse; genuine issues preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunnewind v. Cook, 697 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (valid inter vivos trust not part of probate estate; trusts executed in contemplation of death to defeat spouse may be treated as testamentary)
- In re Estate of Weitzman, 724 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trust executed to defeat surviving spouse’s statutory share may be considered testamentary)
- Walker v. Lawson, 526 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1988) (election to take against a will is a simple statutory right, effective when timely and properly executed)
- Leazenby v. Clinton Cty. Bank & Trust Co., 355 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976) (inter vivos trust assets generally do not satisfy surviving spouse’s elective share)
- Morris v. Crain, 71 N.E.3d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (summary judgment standards; appellate review de novo)