Court Opinion

ID: 9951084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 16:04:41.344785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:12.336168
License: Public Domain

IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
                     In re: the Administration of the Trust of:
                          H. Louise Bosworth, Deceased.                   FILED
                                                                     Mar 15 2024, 10:16 am
                                       Vickie Jones, et al.,              CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                        Appellants-Petitioners           Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

                                                    v.

                                         Tony Bosworth,
                                        Appellee-Respondent

                                           March 15, 2024
                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
                                           23A-TR-807
                            Appeal from the Randolph Circuit Court
                               The Honorable Jay L. Toney, Judge
                                       Trial Court Cause No.
                                        68C01-2112-TR-164

                                 Opinion by Judge May
                        Chief Judge Altice and Judge Foley concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024       Page 1 of 13
[1]   Vickie Jones and Karen Loser (collectively, “Sisters”) appeal the trial court’s

      order docketing the copy of the H. Lousie Bosworth Trust Agreement tendered

      by Tony Bosworth (“Tony”). The Sisters raise three issues on appeal, which we

      consolidate, revise, and restate as: Whether Tony properly challenged Sisters’

      verified petition to docket trust by filing a second verified petition to docket

      trust in the cause of action opened by Sisters. We affirm in part, reverse in part,

      and remand.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   Jones, Loser, and Tony are the three children of H. Louise Bosworth

      (“Louise”) and Neal L. Bosworth (“Neal”). Louise died on October 19, 2019.

      Neal passed away on April 4, 2021.

[3]   On December 22, 2021, Sisters filed a petition to docket Louise’s trust in the

      Randolph County Circuit Court. They attached to their petition a collection of

      documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Two-Amendment

      Instrument”) that included the original trust instrument that Louise created on

      February 5, 2003, a first trust amendment that Louise had signed on December

      20, 2006, and a second trust amendment that Louise signed on December 22,

      2011. The trial court granted Sisters’ petition on December 28, 2021, and

      ordered the Two-Amendment Instrument be docketed and administered. The

      trial court’s order stated:

              WHEREFORE IT IS NOW HEREBY ORDERED,
              ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024          Page 2 of 13
        1. This Court assumes jurisdiction and venue over the
        administration of the Original Trust Instrument, the First
        Amendment, and the Second Amendment.

        2. The Original Trust Instrument, the First Amendment, and the
        Second Amendment are hereby docketed in this proceeding,
        pursuant to I.C. 30-4-6-7.

        3. Said written instruments shall be removed from the Court’s
        file upon conclusion of this matter.

        4. Administration of the Original Trust Instrument, the First
        Amendment, and the Second Amendment shall be subject to the
        supervision of this Court, pending resolution of all issues related
        thereto.

        5. Following are the interested persons entitled to Notice of all
        proceedings herein:

        Vickie L. Jones
        Beneficiary of the Original Trust Instrument, the First Trust
        Amendment and the Second Trust Amendment

        Karen J. Loser
        Beneficiary of the Original Trust Instrument, the First Trust
        Amendment and the Second Trust Amendment

        Tony W. Bosworth
        Beneficiary of the Original Trust Instrument, the First Trust
        Amendment and the Second Trust Amendment

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 65-66) (emphasis in original). On January 6, 2022,

Sisters’ counsel sent Tony a certificate of trust. The cover letter included with

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024           Page 3 of 13
      the certificate of trust stated: “You must commence any judicial proceeding to

      contest the validity of the Trust within (90) days after your receipt of this Notice

      and the enclosed Certificate of Trust.” (Id. at 106.)

[4]   On January 20, 2022, in the cause of action commenced by Sisters, Tony filed a

      verified petition to docket trust. Tony attached to his verified petition a

      collection of documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Three-

      Amendment Instrument”) that included the original trust instrument Louise

      created on February 5, 2003, the two amendments to the original trust

      instrument that Sisters had submitted, and a third amendment to the original

      trust instrument that Louise signed on July 15, 2016. Tony asserted in his

      petition to docket trust:

              7. On December 22, 2021, Vickie Jones and Karen Loser
              submitted a Petition to Docket Trust.

              8. On December 28, 2021, the Court entered an Order Docketing
              Trust, however such Order only referenced and gave the Court
              powers of supervision and administration over the Trust and two
              of the three amendments to the Trust.

              9. Accordingly, Tony Bosworth submits that the granting of
              relief in the form of the docketing of the complete Trust
              Agreement including all three amendments thereto is
              appropriate.

      (Id. at 68.) The trial court set a hearing for March 15, 2022, on Tony’s petition,

      but the hearing was reset and vacated multiple times.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024          Page 4 of 13
[5]   On December 30, 2022, the trial court entered an order directing the parties to

      submit briefs regarding Tony’s verified petition and set a hearing on the petition

      for March 9, 2023. Sisters argued in their brief in opposition to Tony’s verified

      petition that Tony had waived his right to contest the validity of the copy of

      Louise’s trust that Sisters filed on December 22, 2021, because his purported

      action contesting the validity of the trust was procedurally improper and

      untimely. In Tony’s brief, he argued that the copy of the trust instrument he

      filed was “self-proving” and that if Sisters wished to assert Louise lacked the

      capacity to enter the third amendment to the instrument, they bore the burden

      of proving Louise lacked such capacity. (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at 125.)

[6]   On March 9, 2023, the trial court began the hearing 1 by stating:

               COURT: We are here this morning on two Trust matters. The
               Matter of the Administration of the Trusts of Neal Bosworth,
               2112-TR-163 and Trust of H. Louise Bosworth, 2112-TR-164. . .
               . These causes are scheduled today for argument essentially and
               the Court will take testimony also with regard to the issue of
               whether Mr. Bosworth acted appropriately and in a timely
               manner in the filings that he made in each of these cases. The
               Court will then take that matter under advisement pursuant to
               conversations with both counsel in chambers this morning, how
               the case would proceed after that point would depend upon my
               determination of that issue. For example, if the Court
               determined that Mr. Bosworth was not timely, and his filing was
               not appropriate then the Court would proceed with the Trust [sic]

      1
       For this hearing, the trial court consolidated the instant lawsuit between Sisters and Tony regarding
      Louise’s trust and a second lawsuit between Sisters and Tony related to Neal’s trust. See In re: the
      Administration of the Trust of: Neal L. Bosworth, Deceased. Vickie Jones, et al. v. Tony Bosworth, 23A-TR-00813.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024                                      Page 5 of 13
              as they are already filed and if the Court determined Mr.
              Bosworth did act timely and appropriately in what he filed then
              we would proceed with evidentiary hearings as to which of the
              amendments, well there actually may be other filings that will be
              made. The Court will make that determination first and then the
              parties can make their decisions as to how to proceed at that
              point. Counsel does that accurately reflect our conversations this
              morning.

              [Sisters:] Yes, Your Honor.

              [Tony:] I believe it does Judge.

      (Appellants’ Supp. App. Vol. II at 3.) Tony testified at the hearing, but Sisters

      did not testify or present any evidence.

[7]   On March 17, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting Tony’s petition.

      The order provided, in relevant part:

              A. Tony Bosworth’s Petition should be, and hereby is, granted.

              B. The H. Louise Bosworth Trust Agreement dated as of
              February 5, 2003 together with each of the three amendments
              thereto . . . is hereby docketed in this proceeding pursuant to Ind.
              Code § 30-4-6-7.

                                                 *****

              D. The H. Louise Bosworth Trust Agreement dated as of
              February 5, 2003 together with each of the three amendments
              thereto . . . shall be administered under the supervision of this
              Court.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024           Page 6 of 13
              E. This Order shall supersede and take precedence over this
              Court’s Order Docketing Trust entered on December 28, 2021.

      (Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 8-9.) On April 11, 2023, Sisters filed a motion for

      the trial court to certify for interlocutory appeal its order docketing the Three-

      Amendment Instrument. The trial court certified the order for interlocutory

      appeal on April 17, 2023. We accepted interlocutory jurisdiction on June 26,

      2023.

      Discussion and Decision
[8]   Sisters assert Tony failed to comply with the statutory procedure for contesting

      a trust, and therefore, the trial court lacked the requisite authority to docket the

      Three-Amendment Instrument. Sisters ask us to vacate the trial court’s order

      docketing the Three-Amendment Instrument and reinstate the trial court’s

      December 28, 2021, order docketing the Two-Amendment Instrument. We

      review the trial court’s order de novo because it turns on a question of statutory

      interpretation. Kelley v. State, 166 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “[O]ur

      goal in statutory interpretation is to determine, give effect to, and implement the

      intent of the legislature as expressed in the plain language of its statutes.”

      Metro. Dev. Corp. v. Powell, 162 N.E.3d 936, 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “The

      rules of statutory interpretation mandate that we assign words their plain and

      ordinary meaning unless the statute provides definitions otherwise.”

      Montgomery v. State, 878 N.E.2d 262, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We pay

      attention both to what the statute says and to what it does not say. ESPN, Inc. v.

      Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1195 (Ind. 2016). “[W]e may

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024           Page 7 of 13
      not add new words to a statute which are not the expressed intent of the

      legislature.” Ramey v. Ping, 190 N.E.3d 392, 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans.

      denied.

[9]   Indiana Code section 30-4-6-14 provides a time limit within which an

      individual must contest the validity of a trust. The statute states, in relevant

      part:

                (a) A person must commence a judicial proceeding to contest the
                validity of a trust that is irrevocable or revocable at the settlor’s
                death, or revocable at the time the notice under this section is
                given, within the earlier of the following:

                (1) Ninety (90) days after the person receives from the trustee, the
                settlor, or the agent of the trustee or settlor, a copy of a trust
                certification required by IC 30-4-4-5 and a notice that:

                       (A) informs the person of the trust’s existence;

                       (B) states the trustee’s name and address;

                       (C) states:

                                (i) the person’s interest in the trust, as described in
                                the trust document; or

                                (ii) that the person has no interest in the trust; and

                       (D) states the time allowed for commencing the
                       proceeding.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024                   Page 8 of 13
               (2) Three (3) years after the settlor’s death.

       Ind. Code § 30-4-6-14(a). Sisters’ counsel sent a copy of the trust certification to

       Tony on January 6, 2022, and Tony filed the second petition to docket trust on

       January 20, 2022. Thus, Tony filed within the 90 days provided by Indiana

       Code section 30-4-6-14(a)(1).

[10]   Nevertheless, Sisters contend Tony’s filing of a second petition does not satisfy

       the requirement in Indiana Code section 30-4-6-14(a) that the challenging party

       “commence a judicial proceeding.” (emphasis added). They argue “three

       documents are required to commence a suit: a complaint, a summons, and a

       filing fee.” (Appellant’s Br. at 8.) Sisters analogize the instant case to Blackman

       v. Gholson, 46 N.E.3d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), reh’g denied. In Blackman, two

       of the decedent’s three children filed a petition to open the decedent’s estate and

       probate her will. Id. at 977. The third child then filed a “Verified Contest of

       Will” in the same court and under the same cause number as the original

       probate action. Id. The trial court dismissed the will contest action, and we

       affirmed the trial court. Id. We reasoned that while the statute outlining the

       procedure for initiating a will contest was vague, “caselaw has emphasized that

       a will contest action is separate and distinct from the probate of a will, and that

       it is governed by the Indiana Trial Rules regarding commencement of a civil

       action; it is not treated merely as a pleading within the probate action.” Id. at

       980.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024         Page 9 of 13
[11]   However, the statutes governing will contests specifically require a person

       wishing to contest the validity of a will to file “a separate cause of action” in the

       court with jurisdiction over probate of the will. Ind. Code § 29-1-7-16.5 & Ind.

       Code § 29-1-7-17 (emphasis added). There is not a “separate cause of action”

       requirement in the statute governing trust contests. While Indiana Code section

       30-4-6-14(a) states the challenging party must “commence a judicial

       proceeding[,]” Indiana Code section 30-4-6-5 indicates a proceeding under the

       trust code “may be initiated on either a petition or complaint” and upon

       adequate notice. Here, Tony filed a petition, and there is no assertion that

       Sisters did not receive adequate notice of his filing.

[12]   Filing the alternate version of the same trust in the same cause of action also

       serves the interest of judicial economy because the trial court charged with

       supervising the administration of a trust is the same court deciding contests

       related to the trust’s validity. See Kobold v. Kobold, 121 N.E.3d 564, 575 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2019) (allowing ejectment case to proceed within dissolution action

       served the interest of judicial economy), trans. denied. In Schrage v. Audrey R.

       Seberger Living Trust, we held that, while the trial court had the discretion to

       order that a copy of a trust be docketed in a case brought by an individual

       challenging the trust’s validity, the claimant challenging the trust’s validity was

       not required to petition for the trust be docketed before initiating her action. 52

       N.E.3d 54, 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Thus, it follows that if a trial court may

       order that a trust be docketed in a trust contest action, a person should be

       allowed to contest the validity of the trust in the trust docketing proceeding.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024            Page 10 of 13
       We therefore hold Tony was not required to initiate a separate proceeding to

       contest the validity of the Two-Amendment Instrument. 2

[13]   However, to the extent the trial court’s March 17, 2023, order proports to

       recognize the Three-Amendment Instrument over the Two-Amendment

       Instrument, the order goes beyond the scope of the issues to be addressed at the

       March 9, 2023, hearing. At the hearing, the trial court indicated that it would

       hear argument and take evidence “with regard to the issue of whether [Tony]

       acted appropriately and in a timely manner in the filings that he made[.]”

       (Appellant’s Supp. App. Vol. II at 3.) The trial court further indicated that if it

       “determined [Tony] did act timely and appropriately in what he filed then we

       would proceed with evidentiary hearing as to which of the amendments, well

       there actually may be other filings that will be made.” (Id.) As Sisters point out

       in their reply brief, “[b]efore the trial court could decide if the Third

       Amendment was valid, it needed to decide whether Tony satisfied the

       procedural requirements to raise the issue at all.” (Appellants’ Reply Brief at

       18.) Sisters assert the trial court’s March 17, 2023, order “improperly conflates

       2
         While we reach our holding regarding Tony’s January 2022 petition based on the statutes and caselaw that
       existed at that time, we note the General Assembly shortly thereafter modified the Trust Code to explicitly
       provide that competing versions of a trust instrument could be filed in the same proceeding. See Ind. Code §
       30-4-6-7(a) (effective July 1, 2022) (“If there is a dispute about whether the trust has been amended or
       restated or about which version of a trust instrument is a valid version, two (2) or more parties may file copies
       of different trust instruments or amendments so that the court is aware of their contents.”) & Ind. Code § 30-
       4-6-7(c) (effective July 1, 2022) (“The filing of a copy of a trust instrument under this section does not
       preclude any interested person from asserting claims or defenses regarding the validity, interpretation, or
       administration of the trust or from cross-petitioning for relief under this title.”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024                                  Page 11 of 13
       the processes for docketing and contesting a trust.” (Appellant’s Br. at 9.) We

       agree.

[14]   Sisters assert that they believe the Three-Amendment Instrument “to be invalid

       due to a lack of capacity and/or the product of undue influence by Tony[.]”

       (Appellant’s Br. at 16.) The party asserting a claim of undue influence or lack

       of testamentary capacity bears the burden of proving its claim. Moriarty v.

       Moriarty, 150 N.E.3d 616, 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. However,

       here, Sisters have not had the opportunity to present evidence to support their

       theory that the Three-Amendment Instrument is the product of undue influence

       or a lack of testamentary capacity because the March 9, 2023, hearing was

       limited to whether Tony’s challenge to the validity of the Two-Amendment

       Instrument was procedurally proper and timely. Therefore, we vacate the

       portion of the trial court’s order that purports to credit the Three-Amendment

       Instrument over the Two-Amendment Instrument and remand with instructions

       for the trial court to decide which version of the trust instrument is valid. See,

       e.g., In re Rhoades, 993 N.E.2d 291, 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (holding genuine

       issue of material fact existed regarding whether son unduly influenced mother

       into amending her trust to specifically exclude second son and remanding for

       further proceedings).

       Conclusion
[15]   Tony was not required to initiate a separate cause of action to contest the

       validity of the Two-Amendment Instrument. His petition to docket the Three-

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024         Page 12 of 13
       Amendment Instrument in the same cause of action where Sisters filed their

       petition to docket the Two-Amendment Instrument sufficiently put Sisters on

       notice regarding his challenge. However, because there are competing claims

       regarding the validity of the Three-Amendment Instrument, we remand the

       matter back to the trial court to resolve the claims. We affirm the trial court in

       part, reverse in part, and remand.

[16]   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

       Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.

       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
       Frank D. Otte
       Jennifer F. Perry
       Olivia A. Hess
       Clark, Quinn, Moses, Scott & Grahn, LLP
       Indianapolis, Indiana

       ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
       Lisa M. Dillman
       Applegate & Dillman Elder Law
       Indianapolis, Indiana
       Ben T. Caughey
       Mercho Caughey
       Indianapolis, Indiana

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-TR-807 | March 15, 2024        Page 13 of 13