From
The KDDK Advantage - April 2006
KDDK Supreme Court
Win Changes Indiana Law
The wording of a trust created by Marian
Boelson, a long-time supporter of the University of Southern
Indiana Foundation (USIF), created a legal case that concluded
in the Indiana Supreme Court with a victory for USIF and
the Court’s decision to revise Indiana law regarding the
interpretation of trusts in similar cases. KDDK attorneys
Alan Shovers, Beth Browning and Kevin R. Martin prepared
and argued the case on behalf of USIF. Martin now serves
as Vanderburgh County Prosecuting Attorney.
The phrase “personal property” opened
the door for Mrs. Boelson’s brother, Richard A. Baker,
to claim he should receive the bulk of his sister’s considerable
estate, but the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on March 14
that Mrs. Boelson’s intent was to leave her brother only
“two IRA accounts, an automobile and any furnishings and
personal property in her condominium that he would like.”
The remainder of her estate, the Court decided, was intended
for USIF’s Presidential Scholarship Fund. The Court’s
decision was based on the consideration of extrinsic (outside)
evidence that clearly illustrated that Mrs. Boelson intended
for the bulk of her estate to be given to USIF.
“To win this case we had to convince
the Supreme Court that the arbitrary rules preventing
the admission of any outside evidence that shows the intent
of the deceased were outdated. There are occasions when
the facts are so strong and undisputed that they absolutely
prove what the deceased wanted,” Alan Shovers notes. “We
are very pleased to have succeeded in convincing the judges
of this, and to see the Indiana Supreme Court make Indiana
the first in the nation to adopt this modern view.”
The change in Indiana law resulting
from this case involves the treatment of trust instruments
when the language of the trust is ambiguous (uncertain
or indefinite) — and when it is permissible to consider
extrinsic evidence for the purpose of clarifying the intent
of an ambiguous trust.
Previously, the decision whether or
not to allow extrinsic evidence was based on whether the
trust’s ambiguity was “latent” - created by the language
of the trust itself - or “patent,” meaning not apparent
from the text but established by outside evidence. Because
the task of determining whether the ambiguity is latent
or patent is often cumbersome and ambiguous in itself,
the Supreme Court ruled that there is no longer a need
to make the distinction between latent and patent ambiguities.
From now on, whenever a trust document is ambiguous, all
relevant extrinsic evidence can be considered by the court
to resolve the ambiguity.
Adopting
a Child: Family Leave Rights>
Advice to Dog Owners>>
Medicaid Changes Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005>>>
Attorney Notes >>>> |
