Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1404-ES-273 | February 27, 2015 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Florence Anne Briggs

Briggs Law Office

Flora, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Estate of Joyce Hunter

Jeffrey Barnes,

Appellant-Intervenor,

v.

Dawn Renee Hunter, and

Regina McKinney,

Appellee-Petitioners.

February 27, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

08A02-1404-ES-273

Appeal from the Carroll Circuit 

Court; The Honorable Benjamin A. 

Diener, Judge;

08C01-1305-ES-2

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1404-ES-273 | February 27, 2015 Page 2 of 6

[1] Jeffrey Barnes (Jeffrey) appeals the trial court’s refusal to admit to probate a 

holographic codicil allegedly executed on October 7, 2012. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Joyce Hunter (Joyce) died on February 1, 2013. She was the mother of Jeffrey, 

Dawn Hunter (Dawn), and Regina McKinney (Regina). On May 14, Dawn 

and Regina filed their Petition for Appointment of Co-Personal Representatives 

and for Supervised Administration, alleging Joyce died intestate. On 

November 7, Jeffrey filed a Petition to Probate Will and Petition to Probate 

Holographic Will/Codicil, alleging Joyce executed a will on December 5, 2008, 

and a holographic will or codicil on October 7, 2012. Dawn and Regina filed a 

Motion to Quash the holographic codicil, arguing it did not comply with 

Indiana statutory law regarding the execution of wills.

[4] The trial court held hearings on January 15, 2014, and February 19. The 

parties presented evidence regarding the 2008 will and the 2012 holographic 

codicil. The 2008 will had been filed with an attorney and was self-proven. In 

its February 19 order, the trial court recognized that will as valid, and it 

appointed Jeffrey and Dawn co-personal representatives, as directed by that

will. 

[5] The 2012 holographic codicil granted Jeffrey sole ownership of a property he 

alleged he and Joyce bought as joint tenants, but that was recorded as tenants in 

common. The holographic will was purportedly signed by Joyce; Jeffrey; 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1404-ES-273 | February 27, 2015 Page 3 of 6

Charlotte Callis, Jeffrey’s on-and-off girlfriend; and Josh Bagwell, Joyce’s 

grandson who lived with her. The holographic will had no self-proving clause, 

so Callis and Bagwell signed a document indicating they were present for the 

signing of the 2012 holographic codicil, and they signed the 2012 holographic 

codicil as witnesses at that time.

[6] As part of its February 19 order, the trial court refused to admit to probate the 

holographic codicil. Jeffrey filed a motion to correct error on March 17, and 

the trial court denied his motion.

Discussion and Decision

[7] We first note Dawn and Regina did not file a brief. When an appellee does not 

submit a brief, we do not undertake the burden of developing arguments for 

that party. Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 

Instead, we apply a less stringent standard of review and may reverse if the 

appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie error is “error at first sight, 

on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 

216, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 

[8] The trial court sua sponte made findings of fact and conclusions of law.1 In this 

situation, 

 

1

Jeffrey filed a Motion to Correct Error, and the trial court denied it. Jeffrey does not argue the trial court 

erred when it denied his Motion to Correct Error, and our standard of review for appeal of a Motion to 

Correct Error directs us to consider the underlying order, here the order regarding the probation of Joyce’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1404-ES-273 | February 27, 2015 Page 4 of 6

the specific findings control our review and the judgment only as to the 

issues those specific findings cover. Where there are no specific 

findings, a general judgment standard applies and we may affirm on 

any legal theory supported by the evidence adduced at trial.

We apply the following two-tier standard of review to sua sponte

findings and conclusions: whether the evidence supports the findings, 

and whether the findings support the judgment. Findings and 

conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, 

when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting them. A 

judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us 

with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We consider 

only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable 

inferences flowing therefrom, and we will neither reweigh the evidence 

nor assess witness credibility.

Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Co. v. Heil’s Haven Condominiums Homeowners 

Ass’n, 967 N.E.2d 6, 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 

[9] The trial court found and concluded:

7. Before a written will shall be admitted to probate, the will shall 

be proved by one (1) or more of the subscribing witnesses, or if 

all of them are dead, out of the state, or have become 

incapacitated for any reason since attesting the will, then the 

will shall be admitted to probate upon proof of the handwriting 

of the testator or of one (1) of the subscribing witnesses. I.C. 

29-1-7-9.

8. Decedent purportedly executed a codicil to her will on October 

7, 2012.

9. Jeffrey Barnes testified at the hearing held January 15, 2014 and 

attempted to prove the valid execution of the codicil.

 

2008 will and her 2012 alleged holographic will. See In re Paternity of H.H., 879 N.E.2d 1175, 1177 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2008) (review of motion to correct error includes review of underlying order).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1404-ES-273 | February 27, 2015 Page 5 of 6

10. Jeffrey Barnes is not a competent witness to prove the valid 

execution of the codicil as he receives interest through the 

codicil. I.C. 29-1-5-2-(c). [sic]

11. Ordinarily, a beneficiary in a will is not a competent witness to 

the will. [case citations omitted]

12. No other witnesses to the codicil testified at the hearing held 

January 15, 2014 to prove its valid execution.

13. Charlotte Callis and Josh Bagwell attempted to prove the valid 

execution of the October 7, 2012 codicil in a document titled 

Proof of Holographic Will executed on October 14, 2013 and 

filed with the Court November 7, 2013.

14. Proof of Holographic Will executed on October 14, 2013 and 

filed with the Court November 7, 2013 was not signed under 

the penalties of perjury and thus not testimonial evidence 

sufficient to prove the valid execution of the October 7, 2012 

codicil.

15. The Court determines against the validity [of] the October 7, 

2012 codicil, or the competency of the proof.

16. Pursuant to I.C. 29-1-7-21, the Court refuses the probate of the 

October 7, 2012 codicil.

(App. at 5-6.) Under Ind. Code § 29-1-7-20, the “burden of proof is upon the 

contestor” who objects to the probate of a will. Jeffrey argues Dawn and 

Regina did not meet that burden. We disagree.

[10] Dawn and Regina presented evidence Joyce had suffered a mild stroke and had 

multiple medical issues prior to the execution of the alleged holographic will; 

that one of the witnesses, Callis, might have been personally motivated by 

virtue of her relationship with Jeffrey; and that the other witness, Bagwell, 

might have been personally motivated by virtue of his mental illness and his 

reliance on Joyce. This evidence supports the trial court’s findings and 

conclusions. Jeffrey’s arguments regarding Joyce’s intent and the competency 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1404-ES-273 | February 27, 2015 Page 6 of 6

of the witnesses to the alleged holographic will are invitations for us to reweigh 

the evidence, which we cannot do. See Trust No. 6011, 967 N.E.2d at 14 

(appellate court cannot reweigh evidence on appeal). We accordingly affirm. 

[11] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Friedlander, J., concur.