Shuler v. Estate of Botkins ex rel. Botkins
970 N.E.2d 164
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ruby Shuler Blank-enbaker Botkins died in 2008; the estate opened in 2009 with the Shulers as co-personal representatives to probate the lost 1992 will.
- In September 2009, the Shulers and George Botkins entered into a Family Settlement Agreement approving administration largely in line with the 1992 will.
- The Shulers discovered a January 1987 will and petitioned to set aside the Settlement Agreement and probate the 1987 will, with George opposing.
- The trial court denied the petition on April 12, 2011; the Shulers sought an interlocutory appeal, which this court denied on July 26, 2011.
- On September 2, 2011, the trial court issued an order purporting to make the April 12 order final and appealable; the Shulers appealed the September 2 order.
- The appellate court holds the September 2, 2011 order was neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, and dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the September 2, 2011 order is a final judgment under Rule 2(H)(1). | Shulers argue the order is final. | Trial court's order did not dispose of all claims as to all parties. | Not a final judgment. |
| Whether the September 2, 2011 order is an appealable interlocutory order under Rule 14. | Shulers contend it is appealable as an interlocutory order. | No enumerated Rule 14(A) grounds apply; no 14(B) certification existed. | Not an appealable interlocutory order. |
| Whether the September 2, 2011 order could be final under Rule 54(B). | Shulers seek finality under 54(B). | Order failed to expressly determine no just reason for delay. | Not final under Rule 54(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bueter v. Brinkman, 776 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. Ct.App.2002) (final judgment must dispose of all issues as to all parties)
- Georgos v. Jackson, 790 N.E.2d 448 (Ind.2003) (lack of appellate jurisdiction when not a final judgment)
- Martin v. Amoco Oil Co., 696 N.E.2d 383 (Ind.1998) (strict compliance with 54(B) before finality for less-than-all-issues orders)
- Forman v. Penn, 938 N.E.2d 287 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (magic language required for 54(B) finality)
- Dawson v. Estate of Ott, 796 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (probate orders not final while estate remains open)
- Phillips, In re Guardianship of, 926 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (guardianship context; distinction from probate estate proceedings)
- Bacon v. Bacon, 877 N.E.2d 801 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (interlocutory appeals not allowed absent Rule 14 grounds)