Case Name: Jessie Sue Green MILLIGAN and Mary Ann Green Stone, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Janice Green DENHAM, Mary Meredith, and Janice Green Denham and James W. Funk, in their respective capacities as the named Co-Personal Representatives under the purported Last Will and Testament of Ralph D. Green, deceased, dated March 20, 1986, Appellees (Defendants Below)
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1990-05-21
Citations: 553 N.E.2d 1265
Docket Number: No. 63A01-8909-CV-374
Parties: Jessie Sue Green MILLIGAN and Mary Ann Green Stone, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Janice Green DENHAM, Mary Meredith, and Janice Green Denham and James W. Funk, in their respective capacities as the named Co-Personal Representatives under the purported Last Will and Testament of Ralph D. Green, deceased, dated March 20, 1986, Appellees (Defendants Below).
Judges: BAKER, J., concurring.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 2d
Volume: 553
Pages: 1265–1268

Head Matter:
Jessie Sue Green MILLIGAN and Mary Ann Green Stone, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Janice Green DENHAM, Mary Meredith, and Janice Green Denham and James W. Funk, in their respective capacities as the named Co-Personal Representatives under the purported Last Will and Testament of Ralph D. Green, deceased, dated March 20, 1986, Appellees (Defendants Below).
No. 63A01-8909-CV-374.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.
May 21, 1990.
Jeffrey R. Kinney, Kevin J. Messmer, Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald and Hahn, Evansville, for appellants.
David V. Miller, David E. Gray, Greg A. Granger, Bowers, Harrison, Kent & Miller, Evansville, for appellees.

Opinion:
CHEZEM, Presiding Judge.
Case Summary
Jessie Sue Green Milligan and Mary Ann Green Stone (Contestors) appeal the trial court's dismissal of their action contesting the validity of the will of Ralph Green, deceased. We reverse.
Issue
Whether summons by sheriff pursuant to Ind.Code 29-1-7-18 must be issued within the five (5) month time period set forth in I.C. 29-1-7-17 for the will contest to have been timely initiated.
Facts
Ralph Green died on June 18, 1988. Three days later, June 21, Contestors filed objections to the probate of Ralph Green's will pursuant to I.C. 29-1-7-16. A petition to probate Ralph's will was filed on June 23. On August 26, Contestors filed a complaint to resist the probate of Ralph Green's will pursuant to I.C. 29-1-7-17, and copies of the complaint and summons were sent by certified mail to Janice Den-ham, Mary Meredith, and James Funk, Defendants to the action.
On September 1, 1988, Special Judge David K. Johnson ordered Ralph Green's will to be admitted to probate. On September 21, Contestors filed an amended complaint. On November 18, Defendants filed a consolidated answer and a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 20 and 22, a summons and copy of Contestors' amended complaint were served by sheriff on Defendants. The cause was venued from Knox County to Pike County on December 18, 1988. On May 30,1989, Judge Marvin Stratton of the Pike Circuit Court issued an amended order dismissing Contestors' amended complaint, holding that because Defendants were not served with summonses by sheriff within five (5) months of Ralph Green's death, as the trial judge interpreted I.C. 29-1-7-18 to require, the trial court did not obtain jurisdiction over the will contest action in a timely manner. From this determination, Contestors appeal.
Discussion and Decision
Contestors contend that the trial court erred in holding that the issuance of summons, as required under I.C. 29-1-7-18, had to be completed within the five (5) month period set out in I.C. 29-1-7-17. We agree.
Contestors filed the appropriate complaint within the five month period as required by statute, I.C. 29-1-7-17; thus the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction. I.C. 29-1-7-18 prescribes the procedure required to provide notice and summons in a will contest. Here, since Defendants were residents of Indiana, the statute required the summonses to be served by the sheriff to acquire personal jurisdiction. However, the statute does not require the clerk to request the sheriff to serve the summonses within five (5) months. Service by sheriff must be accomplished at least ten (10) days before a hearing. See I.C. 29-1-7-18 and I.C. 29-1-1-12(a). There is no other statutory time restraint attached to service or issuance of summons. Therefore, if issuance and service by sheriff occur prior to judgment or dismissal, or ten (10) days prior to a hearing, the cause of action will not fail for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendants contend that Ind. Trial Rule 3 does not apply to will contests. Although T.R. 3 does not refer to the necessity of service of process to commence an action, the definition of the commencement of an action set out in T.R. 3 is applicable to will contests:
COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION
A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court or such equivalent pleading or document as may be specified by statute.
T.R. 4.17 neither exempts probate proceedings from T.R. 3 nor replaces the manner of "filing" in probate proceedings. However, T.R. 4.17 does exempt certain proceedings, including administration of an estate, from T.R. 4 through T.R. 4.16 regarding methods to "serve summons" and "notice." Trial Rule 4.17 reads as follows:
Rules 4 through 4.16 shall not replace the manner of serving summons or giv ing notice as specially provided by statute or rule in proceedings involving . the administration of decedent's estates _ (Emphasis supplied.)
"Commencing" an action is a different procedure than serving "summons" or giving "notice." "Filing" is all that is needed to commence an action in civil court, and "filing" is the procedure to which I.C. 29-1-7-17 refers.
Defendants cite McGeath v. Starr (1901), 157 Ind. 320, 323, 61 N.E. 664, 665, when referring to the general rule of law that to commence a case one must file a complaint and issue summons on all of the would-be defendants. But, in McGeath, the party attempting to contest the will not only "failed to issue adequate process" within the allotted three (3) years, but also never attempted to serve notice by any method. McGeath is distinguishable from our case because here Contestors requested the clerk to issue process and the summons was served by sheriff within a few weeks after the five month period for filing had expired.
The trial court held, as the court in McGeath did, that this rule of law requiring issuance of summons to commence an action applies to will contests. Understandably, this general rule of law has changed since 1901. T.R. 3 states the current rule of law: An action is commenced when a plaintiff files a complaint or equivalent pleading in court. Cf. Zambrana v. Anderson (1990), Ind.App., 549 N.E.2d 1078, and Geiger & Peters, Inc. v. Am. F.N.B. (1981), Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 1279. The revised rule applies to will contests.
In Willman v. Railing (1988), Ind.App., 529 N.E.2d 122, reh. denied, trans. denied, this court held that the procedure relating to the method for service of process in the Trial Rules does not supersede the method defined in I.C. 29-1-7-18, which applies to will contests. Willman also holds that failure to follow the statutorily required method for service of process defined in I.C. 29-1-7-18 deprives the court of jurisdiction over the parties. We decline to extend Willman to require the clerk to issue service of process within five (5) months of the admission of a will for probate. I.C. 29-1-7-18 requires summons to be served by sheriff; it does not place a time restraint on the issuance of service by the clerk.
Further, Willman is distinguishable from the case here. The facts in Willman reveal that the contestors made service of process via certified mail and never requested service by sheriff, as prescribed by I.C. 29-1-7-18. Here, Contestors did request service of process by sheriff.
Filing as required in I.C. 29-1-7-17 is the act of filing the complaint with the court and does not include the issuance of summons. The issuance of summons is beyond the plaintiff's control as it must be completed by the clerk. To hold otherwise would deny the contestors their statutory right to contest the will based upon the independent actions of the clerk's office.
The trial court erred by dismissing Contestors' first amended complaint. Accordingly, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BAKER, J., concurring.
RATLIFF, C.J., dissenting with separate opinion.