Title: State Ex Rel. Crawford v. Howard Circuit Court

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

242 Ind. 593 (1962)
181 N.E.2d 18
STATE EX REL. CRAWFORD ET AL.
v.
HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT, SMITH, SPECIAL JUDGE.
No. 30,160.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed March 14, 1962.
*594 Donald J. Bolinger, of Kokomo, Charles Salyer, of Anderson, and John S. Grimes, of Indianapolis, for relators.
Marshall, Hillis, Hillis & Button, of Kokomo, Powers & Powers and Morrison & Morrison, both of Frankfort, for respondents.
LANDIS, J.
This is an original action for writ of mandate and prohibition asking that respondent court and the Hon. William B. Smith, as special judge thereof, be commanded to grant a jury trial upon a petition to determine heirship filed in the estate of Tressie Stuart, deceased.
Relators are certain persons alleging themselves to be the sole heirs of said Tressie Stuart, claiming heirship as the children of an alleged illegitimate daughter of the father of deceased.
The record before us shows that letters of administration were issued on decedent's estate in 1957, and that on February 18, 1960, a petition to determine heirship was filed in the estate by the joint administrators thereof. Thereafter on October 25, 1960, relators filed answer to the petition to determine heirship and also filed a cross-petition to determine heirship. A change of judge was taken, and relators on July 28, 1961, filed motion for a trial by jury, to which the administrators filed objections, and said objections were sustained by the court. Relators have now petitioned this Court to mandate the lower court to grant a trial by jury on the issues presented by the petition to determine heirship.
The Probate Code of 1953, making provision for the determination of heirship in an estate (Burns' § 6-606, 1953 Repl.), provides as follows:
The comments of the Probate Code Study Commission concerning this section are:
The former law (Burns' § 6-1502), repealed by the Probate Code of 1953 provided:
We have not been cited any authorities of this or other jurisdictions determining the question of whether a jury trial is authorized or proper under a statute such as Burns' § 6-606 (1953 Repl.), supra.
However, under the former law above cited, this Court in the case of Sherwood, Administrator v. Thomasson (1890), 124 Ind. 541, 24 N.E. 334, was confronted with an application by a claimant for a widow's allowance of $500.00 from the funds in the hands of the administrator. The lower court over the objection of appellant submitted the cause to a jury for trial, which this Court held on appeal was error, reversing the judgment. It was stated in such opinion (p. 543 of 124 Ind., and p. 335 of 24 N.E.):
In our judgment Burns' § 6-606 (1953 Repl.), supra, did not change the nature of the proceeding to determine heirship recognized under our law prior to the enactment of such section in 1953. As was stated in the case of Miller v. Bode, Admr. (1923), 80 Ind. App. 338, 334, 139 N.E. 456, 458 (decided prior to the enactment of said section), the proper procedure to prove heirship or the right to a share in the surplus of an estate for distribution is to file a petition averring therein the petitioner's relation to the decedent and all other facts necessary to establish his right to participate in the fund for distribution. The new act did, however, provide the petition could be filed at any time during administration and contained provisions as to notice, hearing and decree.
It may be noted that there is no provision in the Probate Code of 1953 to the effect that proceedings in decedents' estates shall be governed by the rules pertaining to civil actions generally. Had the legislature intended to change the law in this respect it could have made provision therefor.[1]
*599 It is our conclusion that the proceedings to determine heirship being equitable in nature as held by previous authority of this Court, a jury trial in such proceedings is not allowable or proper, and it follows the writ of mandate and prohibition sought in this action by relators must be denied.
Petition for writ of mandate and prohibition denied.
Achor, C.J., and Arterburn, Jackson and Bobbitt, JJ., concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 181 N.E.2d 18.
[1]  See: Model Probate Code Comments (§ 10), (annotated under Burns' § 6-107, 1953 Repl.), wherein it is stated:

"In some states it is provided by statute that where there is no other applicable statute or rule, the rules of civil procedure may be applied.... Such legislation is not recommended. Much of the proceedings in matters of probate is administrative in character and not adversary. It is believed, therefore, that rules of civil procedure designed primarily for adversary proceedings should not be applied."