Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 45A05-1303-GU-150 | May 8, 2015 Page 1 of 4

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Douglas M. Grimes

Douglas M. Grimes, PC

Gary, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

For Eva Willis and Charles Reagins

Mark A. Bates

Schererville, Indiana

For Peoples Bank, SB

Benjamin T. Ballou

Bonnie C. Coleman

Hodges & Davis, P.C.

Merrillville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the 

Guardianship of N.R.,

N.R.,

Appellant-Protected Person,

 v.

Eva Willis and Charles Reagins, 

Peoples Bank, SB,

Appellees-Petitioners.

May 8, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A05-1303-GU-150

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court

The Honorable Calvin Hawkins, 

Judge

Cause No. 45D02-1206-GU-27

Robb, Judge.

[1] Eva Willis and Charles Reagins, the former temporary guardians of N.R.

(collectively, “Former Guardians”), petition for rehearing of this court’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 45A05-1303-GU-150 | May 8, 2015 Page 2 of 4

opinion in In re Guardianship of N.R., 26 N.E.2d 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In that 

opinion, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence 

relevant to the determination of whether it was reasonable to award fees and 

costs from the guardianship estate on behalf of the Former Guardians. Id. at 

104. We grant rehearing to address the Former Guardians’ claims, but reaffirm 

our opinion in all respects.

[2] We are not persuaded by the Former Guardians’ arguments for rehearing any 

more than we were persuaded by their original arguments for affirming the trial 

court. On appeal, they asserted that there had never been a finding they had 

engaged in misconduct and therefore there was no basis for denying them fees

and costs—pointing out that in fact, the trial court had earlier stated that all the 

parties had acted in good faith. See Brief of the Appellee at 6, 12-14. We held 

that was part of the problem: the trial court did not hear any evidence on the 

misconduct N.R. alleged the Former Guardians committed in order to 

adequately make such a finding. In re N.R., 26 N.E.3d at 103-04. On 

rehearing, the Former Guardians claim that this court “erred in assuming facts 

based upon an unsworn and unverified petition executed by an attorney while a 

properly entered order of guardianship went unchallenged in the trial court[.]”

Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing at 2. 

[3] The Former Guardians allege the facts regarding misconduct were not properly 

before the trial court because the petition was unverified in violation of a local 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 45A05-1303-GU-150 | May 8, 2015 Page 3 of 4

rule. That may be true,1 but that is not the reason the trial court refused to hear 

evidence on those facts. And the fact that the trial court refused to hear that 

evidence is the very reason we were forced to rely on the allegations of the 

petition in adjudicating N.R.’s appeal. We did not find that such facts were 

true and binding on the trial court, only that N.R. was entitled to the opportunity

to prove such facts. 

[4] Further in contending that the order of temporary guardianship was “properly 

entered,” Former Guardians fail to recognize that regardless of the factual 

allegations of misconduct by Former Guardians, we also held there were 

several procedural irregularities that required consideration in determining 

whether the Former Guardians acted reasonably. These irregularities included 

insufficient allegations in the petition for guardianship and lack of notice and a 

hearing before the order was entered. In re N.R., 26 N.E.3d at 102-03. There 

were myriad reasons for finding the trial court abused its discretion in this case.

[5] Finally, Former Guardians again assert that N.R. did not timely challenge the 

temporary guardianship order and argue that because he ultimately consented 

to a guardianship, he waived his right to contest the awarding of attorney fees 

to Former Guardians. The timeliness issue has already been decided against 

Former Guardians by our supreme court, see id. at 100 n.3, and we further note 

that given the procedural posture of this case and the trial court’s rulings, N.R. 

 

1 Although Former Guardians challenged the inclusion of these facts on appeal as outside the record, see Br. 

of the Appellee at 8, it does not appear they challenged them on this specific basis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 45A05-1303-GU-150 | May 8, 2015 Page 4 of 4

raised the issue at his first opportunity and to the best of his ability. And as to 

the ultimate result, we noted in the opinion that it is not the result of the 

litigation but the necessity for the litigation that is determinative of the right to 

compensation from the guardianship estate. Id. at 100. N.R. may have needed 

a guardian due to his age. But he may not have needed Former Guardians to 

incur over $15,000 in fees to procure one, given that he had already appointed 

an attorney-in-fact of his choice.

[6] Having duly considered the arguments Former Guardians have advanced in 

their petition for rehearing, we reaffirm our original opinion that the trial court 

abused its discretion in awarding fees and costs out of the guardianship estate 

without fully considering the evidence relevant to the award. 

[7] The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this court’s opinions.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.