Court Opinion

ID: 9897360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:36.95994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:09.635750
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Jun 23 2023, 8:45 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
George Douglas Abrams                                       Scott A. Milkey
Indianapolis, Indiana                                       McNeely Law, LLP
                                                            Shelbyville, Indiana

                                             IN THE
     COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In re the Supervised Estate of                              June 23, 2023
Gene D. Bricker, Deceased                                   Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                            23A-ES-3
Ann Bricker,
                                                            Appeal from the Hancock Superior
Appellant-Defendant,                                        Court
        v.                                                  The Honorable DJ Davis, Judge
                                                            Trial Court Cause No.
The Estate of Gene D. Bricker                               30D01-2111-ES-216
and Dennis Bricker,
Appellees-Plaintiffs.

                                Opinion by Judge Bradford
                            Judges Riley and Weissmann concur.

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-ES-3 | June 23, 2023                                 Page 1 of 6
      Case Summary
[1]   As of late 2019, Gene Bricker was married to Ann, and the couple had three

      children, including Dennis. In December of 2019, Gene executed his last will

      and testament (“the Will”), documents modifying a bank account (“the Farm

      Account”) to be payable to Dennis upon Gene’s death (“the POD

      Designation”), and two transfer-on-death (“TOD”) deeds regarding certain real

      estate (“the Real Estate”) in Hancock County in favor of Dennis (“the TOD

      Deeds”). In September of 2021, Gene died, and, in July of 2022, Ann filed her

      notice of intention to take against the Will and later petitioned to have the Real

      Estate and Farm Account included in the estate, which petition the trial court

      denied. Ann contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition because

      the transfers of the Real Estate and Farm Account were testamentary in nature

      and, therefore, the property should be included in Gene’s estate for purposes of

      satisfying her spouse’s elective share of the estate. Because we disagree, we

      affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   During their marriage, Gene and Ann had three children, including Dennis.

      On December 3, 2019, Gene executed the POD Designation with Greenfield

      Banking Company to modify the Farm Account to be payable to Dennis upon

      Gene’s death. On December 17, 2019, Gene executed the Will and the TOD

      Deeds, in which deeds Gene agreed to transfer and quitclaim the Real Estate to

      Dennis upon Gene’s death.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-ES-3 | June 23, 2023            Page 2 of 6
[3]   Gene died on September 17, 2021. On October 18, 2021, Dennis executed two

      TOD affidavits with respect to the TOD Deeds, both of which were recorded

      on November 2, 2021. On July 6, 2022, Ann filed her notice of intention to

      take against the Will and later petitioned to have the Real Estate and Farm

      Account included in the estate. The trial court denied Ann’s petition to include

      the Real Estate and Farm Account in Gene’s estate and her motion to

      reconsider.

      Discussion and Decision
[4]   Because the trial court did not make findings of fact and conclusions thereon,

      the trial court’s order is a general judgment that “[w]e may affirm […] on any

      theory supported by the evidence adduced at trial.” Nelson v. Marchand, 691

      N.E.2d 1264, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). “A general judgment will be affirmed

      upon any legal theory consistent with the evidence, and the court of review

      neither reweighs the evidence nor rejudges the credibility of the witnesses.

      Sizemore v. H & R Farms, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 455, 457 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans.

      denied. “Moreover, when reviewing a general judgment, we presume that the

      trial court correctly followed the law.” Id. “The presumption that the trial

      court correctly followed the law is one of the strongest presumptions applicable

      to our consideration of a case on appeal.” Id.

[5]   Resolution of this appeal requires us to examine the provisions of Indiana Code

      chapter 32-17-14 (the Indiana Transfer on Death Property Act (“the TOD

      Act”)) and Indiana Code section 29-1-3-1 (the Spousal Inheritance Statute (“the

      SIS”)). Where, as here, the relevant facts are not in dispute, the interpretation

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-ES-3 | June 23, 2023            Page 3 of 6
      of statutes is a pure question of law that is reviewed de novo. D.P. v. State, 151

      N.E.3d 1210, 1213 (Ind. 2020).

              “The primary rule in statutory construction is to ascertain and
              give effect to the intent of the legislature.” See Chambliss v. State,
              746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind.2001); Bartlett v. State, 711 N.E.2d 497,
              501 (Ind.1999). “The best evidence of legislative intent is the
              language of the statute itself, and all words must be given their
              plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise indicated by
              statute.” Chambliss, 746 N.E.2d at 77.

      Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045, 1047 (Ind. 2001).

[6]   If the text of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial

      interpretation and must be held to mean what it plainly says. D.P., 151 N.E.3d

      at 1216. We presume that the legislature intended for the statutory language to

      be applied in a logical manner consistent with the statute’s underlying policy

      and goals. Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. 2010). Statutes

      concerning the same subject (in this case, disposition of property upon the

      owner’s death) should be read together and harmonized to give effect to each.

      Clippinger v. State, 54 N.E.3d 986, 989 (Ind. 2016).

[7]   With this in mind, the SIS provides, in part, as follows: “When a married

      individual dies testate as to any part of the individual’s estate, the surviving

      spouse is entitled to take against the will[.] The surviving spouse, upon electing

      to take against the will, is entitled to one-half (½) of the net personal and real

      estate of the testator.” Ind. Code § 29-1-3-1(a). The question, then, is whether

      property subject to TOD transfers is to be considered part of the decedent’s “net

      personal and real estate” for purposes of the SIS. While items bequeathed in
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-ES-3 | June 23, 2023                   Page 4 of 6
      the will, i.e., “testamentary transfers,”1 are clearly included in the estate and

      therefore subject to the SIS, Indiana law also recognizes that “[w]hen a testator

      executes a trust in contemplation of his impending death and does so in order to

      defeat the surviving spouse’s statutory share, the trust will be considered

      testamentary in nature and will not defeat the spouse’s share.” In re Est. of

      Weitzman, 724 N.E.2d 1120, 1123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Ann argues that the

      TOD transfers are similar to such a trust, i.e., testamentary in nature, and that

      their subject property should be pulled back into Gene’s estate.

[8]   While we acknowledge some similarity between TOD transfers and a trust

      designed to defeat a surviving spouse’s share, we nonetheless conclude that the

      TOD transfers in this case cannot be included in Gene’s estate. The TOD Act

      provides, in part, as follows: “[a] transfer on death transfer […] is not considered

      testamentary[.]” Ind. Code § 32-17-14-5 (emphasis added). It is a well-settled

      principle that we

              “generally presume that all statutory language is used
              intentionally,” so that “[e]ach word should be given effect and
              meaning where possible,” AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d
              1068, 1079 (Ind. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted), and
              not treated as “mere surplusage,” Martin v. Martin, 495 N.E.2d
              523, 524–25 (Ind. 1986).

      In re Howell, 27 N.E.3d 723, 726 (Ind. 2015).

      1
       “Testamentary transfer” is defined as “[a] transfer made in a will.” Testamentary Transfer, BLACK’S LAW
      DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-ES-3 | June 23, 2023                                  Page 5 of 6
[9]    TOD transfers are non-testamentary by definition, so, if the phrase “not

       considered testamentary” does nothing more than declare them to be non-

       testamentary, it is mere surplusage. The phrase, however, does not define or

       otherwise address the inherent nature of a TOD transfer, but, rather, how it is

       “considered.” In this context, the most logical interpretation of the phrase “not

       considered testamentary” is that TOD transfers cannot be found to be

       “testamentary in nature” for purposes of the SIS. Consequently, even if the

       TOD transfers would otherwise be subject to the rule mentioned in Weitzman,

       the trial court correctly denied Ann’s petition to have the Real Estate and Farm

       Account included in Gene’s estate.

[10]   We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       Riley, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-ES-3 | June 23, 2023             Page 6 of 6