*1 Supervised In the Matter of The Harold C.
ESTATE OF
GOINS, Deceased. GOINS, Appellant/Cross-
Appellee-Petitioner,
ESTATE OF Harold C.
GOINS, Deceased, Goins,
Gregory Goins, Cathy L. S. &G Farms, Inc., Appellees/Cross- Goins
C
Appellants-Defendants.
No. 48A05-9112-CV-405. Indiana, Appeals
Court of
Fifth District.
June
Rehearing Aug. Denied *2 farming corporation by Greg and his Davisson, Davis- owned Davisson & Richard F. son, P.C., Anderson, Cathy. The other two deeds trans- appellant. for wife remaining acreage to Harold ferred the Lawyer, Decker, II, Decker & Philip G. prepared by individually. The deeds were Pearce, & How- Anderson, Pearce John S. attorney request, and Harold’s at Harold’s Noblesville, ard, appellees. for attorney’s executed in the office. were a after Ruthana executed the About week BARTEAU, Judge. deeds, prop- Harold deeded an acre of this refusal of the appeals Ruthana Goins erty neighbor. his quit-claim deeds aside trial court to set request of her at she executed which leaving July, died testate in Harold Goins, husband, relinquishing Harold late property Greg, subject to a all of his real property her all of ap- life estate in Ruthana. Ruthana was by and Harold as tenants by her once held pointed executrix of the estate after Ha- Ruthana claims that entireties. probate. rold’s will was admitted to Sever- theory aside on the should be set deeds by against made the estate al claims were her husband ex- constructive fraud because brother, Goins, Greg, Harold’s Irvin influence over her. ercised undue Bank was Ruthana. Ameritrust National Goins, nephew, cross-appeals the Harold’s eventually personal named as successor that Harold did not trial court’s conclusion representative. a an inter make vivos ap- to this The claims that are relevant deposit and of a John Deere certificate of Ruthana, only Greg and the peal involve tractor. against Ruthana’s claim the estate estate. affirm. We sought only to have the deeds she executed in favor of Harold rescinded on the basis FACTS fraud and undue influence. constructive were married Harold and Goins separate action for re- She also initiated thirty-one years before Harold’s death for (collec- against Greg and & scission G. C. long struggle cancer. after a “Greg”). claims tively These two were life, During was a successful claimed that consolidated. Ruthana also farmer, of farm acquiring over 250 acres $125,000.00 on a exe- owed her note and Ruthana owned property which Harold cuted in favor Ruthana and Ha- All of the as the entireties. tenants rold, and that had converted farming expenses as well as the Goins’ estate, specifically, a John Deere paid joint ac- living expenses were tractor, cultivator, a field and a backhoe. by Harold and Ruthana. Ru- counts owned Greg on his sought Ruthana also rent from during the mar- a housewife equipment. use of the however, riage; she inherited a 95- claimed that he off the note father, which she man- acre farm from her funds held when turned over to Ruthana aged by herself. Ruthana also successful- him deposit given in a certificate of her managed cash she received from ly He also claimed and Harold. from the farm. as income father well equipment. farm given Harold had him the for the separate account She maintained owed him Greg further claimed the estate farm, from her expenses and income crop that had been harvesting any income to the did contribute planted on farm before and Harold. Ha- owned accounts par- July. By agreement death any have chil- Ruthana did not rold and ties, claims heard on the evidence was dren. dispute as the against as well the estate three Ruthana executed August, Greg at the same between Ruthana deeds, relinquishing all of her quit-claim time. in the 250 acres. One ownership interest findings of fact entering After extensive property to transferred some of the deeds pursuant Inc., C.), of law Farms, (G. and conclusions & G. & C. Goins requests, the court held DEEDS parties’ influence not exercise undue Harold did to have Ruthana seeks the deeds she deeds; in the execution of the over Ruthana executed in of Harold favor set aside on of de- not own the certificate the basis of constructive fraud. She ar- *3 on posit; he still owed Ruthana gues procured her signature on her; by 3) held Ruthana owned the note by exercising the deeds undue influence tractor owed her rent for use and argues proved over her. She that once she tractor; 4) Harold did not at trial that she and Harold were married Greg; the field cultivator backhoe and that Harold was the party dominant in was Greg’s; relationship, and G & C Farms not their a rebuttable presumption of undue farming ex- influence arose. The entitled to reimbursement for burden then (Harold’s shifted to the defendants estate penses. Greg) and to rebut the presumption issue The sole raised Ruthana is: convincing clear and evidence to the con- the trial I. Whether court’s conclusion trary. argues She that defendants failed unduly that Harold did not Ru- influence to meet this burden. contrary is law. It is in well-settled Indiana that transac tions
Restated, involving legal to certain and issues raised relationships give domestic rise to a rebut- cross-appeal are: presumption table that the transaction was I. Whether find- constructively “upon showing fraudulent ing deposit not that the transaction resulted in an advan belong Greg and owed tage person to the dominant in whom trust note; thana on reposed by and confidence was the subor II. Whether trial court erred find- (1984), dinate.” v. Ind.App., Lucas Frazee completed Harold did 1163, not make a 471 N.E.2d 1167. See also Womack (1992), Ind.App., inter vivos of the John Womack 605 N.E.2d 221, denied; (1988), reh’g Bedree v. Bedree Tractor pay Deere and that must 1128, denied; reh’g 528 using rent for after tractor (1985), McClamroch v. McClamroch Ind. death. 514, App., denied, reh’g 476 N.E.2d trans. Among relationships denied. often cit DISCUSSION giving presumption ed as rise to such a are Here, spe the trial court client, ward, entered attorney guardian pastor principal agent, parishioner, cific of fact and of law conclusions wife, parent husband and and child. Lu pursuant parties’ requests. We are cas, at pre 471 N.E.2d 1167. The law governed by following therefore stan i.e., party, sumes first that the the attor First, dard of review: we must determine etc., ney, guardian, principal, is the domi supports find whether nant other and the is the subordinate. Second, ings. we must determine whether Womack, N.E.2d at 224. findings support judgment. The judgment will be affirmed if we conclude Womack, In court this examined whether special findings support judg that the still consider Indiana should the hus- relationship are clearly giving ment and A band/wife erroneous. rise to undue influence and con- judgment clearly is a re erroneous where cluded: record a firm view of the leaves us with that a made.
conviction mistake has been see, however, why We fail to we should Carpetland South Bend v. San U.S.A. indulge continue to a belief that the mari- (1991), Ind.App., dock 570 N.E.2d relationship tal in and of itself bestows denied, upon reh’g party (presum- trans. dominant one denied. status DEPOSITION OF status CERTIFICATE husband) and subordinate
ably the PAYMENT OF NOTE AND solely on party based upon the other relationships cited The list of gender. trial court erred Greg argues that the vastly era with originated an deposit Lucas concluding that a certificate con- and beliefs expectations Ruthana in the different Harold and cited spouses Harold, cerning roles of Ruthana and be- {Lucas names Ind.App. (1913), 54 at Harold’s death. longed McDowell to Ruthana Keys v. which, turn, death, Ha- 263, 269, January, before 100 N.E. cases), purchased and we a certificate of Indiana rold and older cited even $100,000in name of Harold family law deposit Indiana contemporary note Greg. The certificate Ruthana or and wives or husbands place strives *4 security num- Greg’s under social opened 21- See, IND.CODE footing. e.g., equal the inter- Greg paid income tax on ber equal divi- that (presumption 1-11.5-11 certificate; however, generated by the est marriage dissolution sion to any contribute of the funds Greg did not just). is reasonable action certifi- the certificate. When the purchase longer presumes no the law We hold Greg directed the purchased, cate was relationship is in the marital party one deposit the interest from the certif- to bank In- other subordinate. and the dominant by Rutha- into another account owned icate stead, undue influ- proving the burden Although the had no and Harold. bank na seeking party to set remains on the ence to remove of a written instruction records Upon prima a the transaction. aside from the cer- or Harold’s name Ruthana’s showing parties facie tificate, copy passbook a of the it did have equality and that the on terms of deal an init- for the account. The book showed advantage to the an unfair result was to delete the names Ha- ialled notation shifts to party, burden dominant (The original passbook and Ruthana. rold defending party to demonstrate affirma- the Federal Estate Tax Re- was filed with deception practiced, tively that “no Estate). turn for Harold’s Ruthana denies used, and all was no influence was undue having given the bank instructions to with- fair, voluntary, and well-under- open, After her name from the certificate. draw Lucas, supra at 1167. stood.” died, Greg the funds in withdrew Id. at 225. gave money Ru- to She, turn, accounts, thana. two we need not decide whether We only one in her name and one both her reasoning employed by the agree with name. appealing As Ruthana is court.1 Womack only Greg argues negative judgment, we will reverse that Ruthana no a longer if is uncontradicted or we are has an “party” a firm conviction that a mistake certificate. A to an account is one left with who, account, Assuming a has been made. Id. terms has pre right, subject request, pay rise present facts here to a rebuttable to to influence, sumption multiple-party of undue the rebuttal ment from a account. Ind. 32-4-1.5-1(7). During that Ruthana well-versed in evidence Code lifetime of account, parties and real estate matters and’that all the to a the ac business equal belongs proportion and Harold dealt on an she basis count “to the relationship their is sufficient to overcome to the net contributions each to the presumption. deposit, this is clear sums unless there gave presumption 1. We note that the court in McClamroch v. Wife and Husband rise to a (1985), undue influence. McClamroch reached a different result under similar factual alleged Womack likewise involved undue in- presented circumstances as in Womack. those fluence er, the Wife over the Husband. Howev- McClamroch, alleged above, Husband’s children permit as stated the court refused to a Wife exercised undue influence over Husband. of undue influence based on the relationship relationship that the The court held between alone. husband/wife
QQl
convincing
intent.”
evidence of a different
The evidence on the elements of a com-
pleted
are,
however,
32-4-1.5-3. At the death of one of
conflicting.
1.C.
remaining
deposit
be-
parties,
having
sums
thana denied
instructed the bank to
long
surviving
parties as
party
or
withdraw
name and denies her intent to
against the estate of the decedent unless make
Greg.
McGill,
a
Ron
a
convincing
there is clear and
evidence of
president
bank,
testified that
intention at the time the
different
account bank normally requires
signed
a
directive
Greg argues
is created.
32-4-1.5-3.
I.C.
from the owners of the account to remove
longer
that Ruthana’s name was no
Indeed,
names.
requires
I.C. 32-4-1.5-6
died;
certificate when Harold
written
vary
order to
the form of the ac-
right
payment
she had no
from the cer-
count or
stop
vary payment
or
under the
tificate account and could not be considered terms of the account. McGilltestified that
party
party
she
thereto. As
was not a
no such directives could be found with re-
death,
the certificate at Harold’s
she had gard to the certificate at issue here. The
Therefore,
ownership.
no claim of
accord- question of
why
how and
Ruthana’s and
ing Greg,
in apply-
Harold’s names were removed is necessari-
seq.
dispute.
I.C. 32-4-1.5-1 et
to this
one of
ly
credibility
Greg claiming
with
given
certificate was
to him and
agree
We
that the above-cited
*5
Ruthana denying the same. Because there
statutes do not resolve this issue.
Indiana
is evidence from which the court could con-
32-4-1.5-3
Code
resolves
issues
gift
intended,
clude no
was
we affirm the
surviving parties
between the
and the es-
trial court.
Here, however,
tate of the deceased.
we
people
have a claim
two
between
both
In a
argument, Greg
related
asserts that
claiming
surviving
be
to the ac-
paid
he
off a
note held Ruthana when he
count.
turned over the
in
funds
the certificate to
that,
1987,
her. The trial court found
in
trial,
Greg claimed at
as he does on
Greg $125,000,
Harold and Ruthana loaned
appeal, that
gave
Harold and Ruthana
as evidenced
a note or notes executed
such,
certificate to him. As
the burden
by Greg
Cathy.
and
Under the terms of
Greg
prove
was on
that all of the re
note(s),
interest,
pay
towas
6%
quirements
gift
of an inter vivos
were met
principal
payments
with
and interest
to be
during
Specifically,
Harold’s
lifetime.
December,
made
beginning
at the first of
1)
prove:
had to
part
intent on the
$17,000
December,
Greg paid
on
gift;
and Harold to make the
December,
principal
1988 and
delivery
that
there was
and
$1,183.33
Greg argues
interest.
that
acceptance by Greg;
and
that
was
finding
trial
that he had not
immediate and absolute. Hopping v. Wood
However,
paid off the note.
because we
(1988), Ind.App.,
1205,
526 N.E.2d
reh’g
affirm
conclusion
to the
the court’s
as
own-
denied;
denied;
In re
trans.
Estate of
certificate,
ership
we must also af-
(1988), Ind.App.,
Deahl
The
purchased
relinquishing
the 4650
the deeds
signature
In
Harold
na’s
are:
property
funds from a
ownership rights
to the
were
Deere tractor
John
and Ruthana.
by Harold
under constructive fraud or
owned
not obtained
account
direction,
purchase order
affirm the
At Harold’s
undue influence. We likewise
name. The
in Ruthana’s
made out
trial court’s conclusions
was
Harold’s farm and was
used on
of de-
give
tractor
Ruthana did not
May,
property.
posit
stored
Deere 4650 tractor to
John
died,
Harold had
before
months
Greg.
two
regarding the
tax adviser
consulted
RUCKER, J., concurs.
and made no mention of
equipment
farm
Greg. Ruthana
tractor to
gift of the
J.,
SULLIVAN,
opinion.
concurs with
intend to
give nor did she
did not
SULLIVAN, Judge, concurring.
Greg.
tractor to
following
subject
I concur
to the
caveat.
of all that the tractor
Greg argues first
adopt
majority opinion declines to
The
individual
reasoning contained Womack v. Wom-
if Harold
only be the owner
could
Dist.Ind.App.,
(1992) 1st
ack
argues
her.
given it to
had
reasoning
opposed
contrary
support
gift of the
evidence does
set forth McClamroch McClamroch
Ruthana;
she has no
tractor to
(1985)
4th Dist.
field tractor which was system on the
radio equipment, and that
unique to his farm the tractor property tax on Laux, LAUX, L. Hus- Laura Robert R. However, supports Laux, Wife, R. and Robert band and belonged the tractor court’s Laux, and Randall D. L. Laux Kenneth no of and that there was to Ruthana Farms, Appellants-Plain- Laux d/b/a receipt Greg. The sales tractor to tiffs, made out Ruthana’s tractor was Man’s of the Dead Statute name. Because ASSOCIATES, INC., LAND CHOPIN 34-1-14-6), (I.C. both Company Deposit Fidelity and testifying to Harold’s were foreclosed Maryland, Appellees-Defendants. of However, testified she did intent. No. 90A02-9302-CV-45. gift of the tractor to to make a not intend kept on the tractor was Greg and that Indiana, Appeals Court it until removed District. Third this, From the court death. after Harold’s 21, 1993. June Ruthana owned could have concluded Sept. Rehearing Denied completed that no the tractor and occurred. the tractor deci- trial court’s
Because we affirm tractor, we
sion