Court Opinion

ID: 9712125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:46:58.920124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:10.159650
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Judge,
dissenting.
I vote to reverse the judgment of the trial court. In my opinion Oldham’s execution, in his individual capacity, of the affidavit for transfer of real estate on the tax transfer books constitutes an acceptance of that real estate. Therefore, Oldham is precluded from thereafter disclaiming his interest in that real estate by the provisions of IC 32-3-2-11 (1988).
The sole purpose of the affidavit was to protect Oldham’s personal interest in the subject real estate from the consequences of unpaid property taxes. It did this by identifying him as the owner of the real estate on the tax records of the auditor’s office. As such it constituted an act of control over the real estate inconsistent with the interest and obligation of the estate in the real estate. Although title to the subject real estate devolved to Oldham upon his father’s death, the father’s estate was entitled to its benefits and suffered its burdens, including the obligation to pay real property taxes.
Every personal representative shall have a right to, and shall take, possession of all the real ... property of the decedent ... He shall pay the taxes and collect the rents and earnings thereon until the estate is settled or until delivered by order of the court to the distribu-tees. He shall keep in tenantable repair the buildings and fixtures ... He may maintain an action for the possession of real property or to determine the title to same.
IC 29-1-13-1 (1988).
Oldham, as personal representative, could have adequately protected his individual interest in the subject real estate by executing the affidavit as personal representative to obtain the tax statement in that capacity. However, he did not do so. Instead, inconsistent with the estate’s in*1199terest in the real estate, Oldham obtained the transfer to himself as an individual. In doing so, he was asserting his personal right to the real estate. Thus Oldham’s act constituted acceptance of the benefit of ownership as well as the obligations thereof.
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Estate of Parker (1985), Ind.App., 485 N.E.2d 1387, is not analogous. The joint tenant in Parker merely executed an application for consent to transfer. Unlike Oldham who did effect a transfer of ownership on the auditor’s records, Parker did not attempt the transfer for which she sought consent. Therefore, the two factual situations are distinguishable. Similarly, IC 6-l.l-5-7(c) is unavailing to the majority’s position. Of course a transfer of ownership upon the auditor’s records does not confer title upon the person procuring the transfer. That is not the point. Oldham received his fee simple interest upon his father’s death. The point is that Oldham accepted that fee simple interest when he acted in his individual capacity to protect his interest by insuring he would receive the tax statements in that capacity rather than as personal representative of the estate.
I vote to reverse the judgment of the trial court.