Court Opinion

ID: 9926339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 17:04:04.338013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:43.616053
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Jan 24 2024, 8:34 am

                                                                           CLERK
                                                                       Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                          Court of Appeals
                                                                            and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jon R. Pactor                                              Steven F. Fillenwarth
Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Carmel Family Law
                                                           Carmel, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Imogene Perry,                                             January 24, 2024
Appellant-Interested Party,                                Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-EU-2774
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Hamilton
                                                           Superior Court
Anne H. Poindexter, Personal                               The Honorable Michael A. Casati,
Representative of the Supervised                           Judge.
Estate of Richard Abbott,                                  Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Petitioner,                                       29D01-2106-EU-000269

Janice Mandla Mattingly,
Appellee-Intervenor,

Michael P. Brown and Phillip
Brown,
Appellees-Interested Parties

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

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                           Page 1 of 30
[1]   Imogene Perry appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion for relief from

      default judgment. She presents multiple issues for our review, one of which we

      find dispositive: whether the trial court erred when it denied her motion for

      relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) based on the lack

      of notice she received after Jane Mandla Mattingly, as personal representative

      of the estate of Richard Abbott (“the Estate”), filed a motion for return of funds

      and the court scheduled a hearing thereon. We reverse and remand.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   On September 4, 2015, Richard Abbott passed away in Muncie, Indiana. At

      some point thereafter, Lauth Investigations International, Inc. (“Lauth”), a

      company based in Indiana, discovered Abbott had unclaimed assets of

      approximately $52,150.00. On May 1, 2021, Perry, Abbott’s heir and a resident

      of Georgia at the time, signed a Claimant Agreement with Lauth in which she

      agreed, among other things, to pay Lauth a “finder fee equal to ten percent

      (10%) of the actual recovered amount of Assets.” (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at

      45.) As part of the Claimant Agreement, Perry also signed a “Contract for

      Genealogical Research Services[,]” wherein she agreed to allow Lauth to

      conduct genealogical research to determine all of Abbott’s heirs. (Id. at 46.)

      The Genealogical Contract also provided Perry agreed to pay Lauth “at

      constancy fee basis at rate 20% of total recovered assets . . . [to be] paid within

      10 days of when the assets are recovered by client[.]” (Id.) Finally, as part of

      the Claimant Agreement, Perry signed a Limited Power of Attorney allowing

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024       Page 2 of 30
      Lauth to, among other things, “communicate and transact business with third

      parties on my behalf, including but not limited to, government agencies, courts,

      political subdivisions, vital records, holding companies, and agents of whatever

      kind, for the purpose of recovering lost or unclaimed assets, property, or funds

      to which I may be entitled.” (Id. at 47.)

[3]   On June 3, 2023, Lauth retained Mattingly, an attorney based in Carmel,

      Indiana, to administer the Estate. Mattingly filed a petition for administration

      of the Estate without court supervision in Hamilton County Superior Court. In

      that petition, she asked the trial court to name her as personal representative

      and requested that she not be required to post bond prior to the administration

      of the Estate because “she is otherwise insured.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II at

      16.) As part of the petition, Mattingly submitted a signed copy of the trial

      court’s “Instructions to Personal Representative of Unsupervised Estate”

      (“Instructions”). (Id. at 20) (original formatting omitted). In those Instructions,

      Mattingly agreed to “[f]ile with this court, within sixty (60) days from the date

      this court issued [sic] your letters, a verified inventory of all property belonging

      to the decedent on the date of death along with values as of that date” and

      “[a]fter court authorization, make distributions to the proper heirs or

      beneficiaries[.]” (Id.)

[4]   On June 7, 2021, the trial court granted Mattingly’s petition and named

      Mattingly as the personal representative of the Estate. On June 17, 2021, the

      trial court issued Mattingly’s Letter of Administration of the Estate. At some

      point between June 17, 2021, and September 21, 2021, Mattingly, as personal

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024       Page 3 of 30
      representative of the Estate, filed a claim in Abbott’s name and collected the

      $52,150.00 in unclaimed funds held by the Indiana Attorney General. After

      paying $15,645.00 in fees, 1 Mattingly disbursed $36,505.00 to Perry as Abbott’s

      heir.

[5]   On September 21, 2021, Michael P. Brown (“Michael”) and Phillip Brown

      (“Phillip”) (collectively, “Brown Heirs”) filed a petition in the Estate

      proceedings to determine heirs of decedent, alleging Michael, Phillip, Vanessa

      O’Bryant, and Michelle DiPego were Abbott’s maternal heirs and thus entitled

      to a portion of the Estate. Brown Heirs asked the trial court to set a hearing on

      the matter. Additionally, Brown Heirs argued the Estate “was improperly filed

      in Hamilton County, contrary to Ind. Code 29-1-7-1, in that decedent did not

      reside, die or own property in Hamilton County.” (Id. at 22.) The trial court

      set a hearing on the matter for November 16, 2021. The Estate filed a motion

      to continue the hearing, which the trial court granted and then rescheduled the

      hearing for December 28, 2021.

[6]   On December 2, 2021, Mattingly, as the Estate’s personal representative, filed a

      motion for order for return of estate funds that asked the trial court to require

      Perry, who allegedly had not responded to two requests to return the Estate

      funds, to pay $18,252.50, or half of what Perry received from the Estate, to the

      1
          The record does not indicate to whom these fees were paid.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024       Page 4 of 30
      Hamilton County Clerk “in order that that those funds may be properly paid to

      the remaining heirs.” (Id. at 25.) As part of that motion, Mattingly alleged:

               Subsequent to the receipt of the estate funds and payment of
               estate proceeds, the Personal Representative became aware that
               one (1) side of the family was missed. Upon receipt of the
               Petition to Determine Heirs of Decedent filed by interested
               parties on September 22, 2021, the Personal Representative
               requested an investigator to search for heirs previously unknown
               to Personal Representative.

      (Id. at 24.) The motion for return of funds listed Perry as one of the people

      upon whom service was required.

[7]   The trial court ordered the parties to present argument on the motion for return

      of funds and on Brown Heirs’ petition to determine heirs at the December 28,

      2021, hearing. On Friday, December 24, 2021, someone at Perry’s residence in

      Georgia 2 signed a receipt of notice for a document regarding the Estate’s

      motion for return of funds. 3

[8]   On December 27, 2021, Brown Heirs filed a waiver of objection to motion for

      order for return of the Estate’s funds. Also on December 27, 2021, Brown Heirs

      2
        It is unclear from the record who signed the certified mail receipt. A copy of the certified mail slip is not in
      the record, and Perry affirmed, as part of her motion for relief of judgment, “I do not recall having received
      any summons providing me of [sic] notice of a claim against me.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 47.)
      3
        A copy of the notice is not in the record presented to us on appeal and thus we are unable to determine if
      the notice was of the motion, the hearing, or both. This omission has made the review of this case more
      difficult.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                                  Page 5 of 30
filed a petition to remove Mattingly as personal representative of the Estate.

Therein, Brown Heirs alleged:

        1. Mattingly has from the outset been unqualified and unsuitable
        to serve as PR [Personal Representative] in that:

                 a. she sought appointment as PR notwithstanding that she
                 does not meet the statutory definition of an “interested
                 person” under I.C. 29-1-1-31(18), and

                 b. she disregarded the venue statute, I.C. 29-1-7-1, by
                 opening the estate in Hamilton County, notwithstanding
                 that the decedent was not domiciled in Hamilton County
                 and owned no property in Hamilton County, and

                 c. she submitted a . . . petition for her own appointment as
                 PR [which] is materially false in that it alleged that
                 Imogene Perry is the “only distributee” and “only heir” in
                 this matter.

        2. Mattingly has mismanaged the estate:

                 a. by failing to conduct such minimal research as would
                 have readily identified Michael P. Brown and Phillip
                 Brown, along with the children of their deceased sibling,
                 Noel Brown, as additional heirs, and

                 b. by charging or permitting the “limited attorney in fact,”
                 Lauth Investigations International, Inc. (“Lauth”) to
                 charge, an unreasonable (and arguably unlawful) fee
                 amounting to thirty percent (30%) of the sole available and
                 easily administered cash asset of the estate, and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024         Page 6 of 30
                    c. distributing to Imogene Perry seventy percent (70%) of
                    the sole assets, $36,505, despite easily discoverable
                    existence of other heirs . . . and

                    d. in light of one or more other matters in which
                    Mattingly, in concert with Lauth, has, in disregard of I.C.
                    29-1-1-31(18) and I.C. 29-1-7-1, has [sic] engaged in an
                    ongoing scheme to extract unreasonable and unlawful fees
                    from unsuspecting heirs of deceased owners of property.

(Id. at 27-8) (internal footnotes 4 omitted). Based thereon, Brown Heirs asked

the trial court to remove Mattingly as the Estate’s personal representative,

require Mattingly “to replace all funds received by her or paid by her to Lauth

and pay fifty percent (50%) of the sole cash asset to the petitioners and the

children of their deceased sibling, and appoint a suitable successor personal

representative.” (Id. at 28.) Brown Heirs also asked the trial court to award

them attorney’s fees because “[i]t has been necessary for petitioners to utilize

the services of an attorney to a greater extent than would have been required

absent the PR’s mismanagement[.]” (Id.) Brown Heirs attached to their

4
    One omitted footnote cites Indiana Code section 32-34-1.5-75(c), which states, in relevant part:

           An agreement under subsection (a) which provides for compensation in an amount that is
           unconscionable is unenforceable except by the apparent owner. Compensation for an
           agreement under subsection (a) is unconscionable if the fee or compensation is more than
           ten percent (10%) of the amount collected, unless the amount collected is fifty dollars
           ($50) or less, and may not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000). An apparent owner that
           believes the compensation the apparent owner has agreed to pay is unconscionable or the
           attorney general, acting on behalf of an apparent owner, or both, may file an action in a
           court with jurisdiction to reduce the compensation to the maximum amount that is not
           unconscionable. An apparent owner that prevails in an action under this subsection may
           be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 27.) The other footnote indicated Abbott’s obituary was attached to the motion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                                   Page 7 of 30
       petition a copy of Abbott’s obituary, which Brown Heirs stated “was found

       within two minutes via online search[.]” (Id. at 27.) The obituary indicated

       “[Abbott] is survived by numerous uncles, aunts, and cousins[.]” (Id. at 29.)

[9]    On December 28, 2021, the trial court held the scheduled hearing on the

       motion for return of the Estate’s funds and the Brown Heirs’ petition to

       determine heirs. 5 Perry did not appear. On January 5, 2022, the trial court

       issued an order that named Abbott’s heirs as Perry, Michael, Phillip, the Estate

       of Noel F. Brown, Nancy Lee Brown Hullinger Taubert, and Joan Pauletta

       Brown Cole Starr. Based on the determination of additional heirs, the trial

       court ordered Perry to return $36,505.00, or all the funds she received from the

       Estate, by January 21, 2022. The trial court’s order indicated that “[i]n the

       event the funds are not returned on or before January 21, 2022, this amount

       shall be reduced to judgment.” (Id. at 32.) Also in its order, the trial court

       found “Imogene Abbott Perry received notice of the hearing via certified mail.

       Exhibit 1 shows receipt of notice of this hearing received on December 24,

       2021.” 6 (Id.)

[10]   Additionally, in the January 5, 2022, order, the trial court set a hearing for

       January 11, 2022, on Brown Heirs’ request to remove Mattingly as personal

       5
           The record does not include a transcript of this hearing.
       6
        Exhibit 1 is not in the record before us. However, we note the distribution list on the trial court’s December
       14, 2021, order scheduling the December 28 hearing does not include Perry. The failure to provide Exhibit 1
       has severely hindered our review.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                              Page 8 of 30
       representative of the Estate. 7 On the day of the hearing, the trial court

       continued the hearing without any indication of a new hearing date.

[11]   On March 9, 2022, Mattingly, as personal representative of the Estate, filed a

       motion to reduce to a judgment the trial court’s January 5, 2022, order that

       Perry pay the Estate $36,505.00. Mattingly alleged Perry had not repaid the

       funds to the Estate by January 21, 2022, as ordered. On March 10, 2022, the

       trial court issued an order reducing the $36,505.00 plus statutory interest to a

       judgment against Perry.

[12]   On March 17, 2022, Brown Heirs filed a motion for an order requiring

       Mattingly to show cause why Mattingly should not be required to “make

       restitution to the estate for funds improperly distributed.” (Id. at 38.) In

       addition to the allegations made in their petition to remove Mattingly as the

       Estate’s personal representative, Brown Heirs argued:

                6. Now Mattingly is attempting to claw back from Imogene
                Perry - a nonresident of Indiana - some or all of the money paid
                to her. Even if this effort succeeds, it will be insufficient [to]
                make the Browns whole in the light of the fact that 30% of the
                assets, or approximately $15,600, was distributed to Lauth and
                Mattingly.

                7. Mattingly should be required to make the Browns whole
                promptly and from whatever combination of personal funds,
                malpractice insurance proceeds and reimbursement from Lauth

       7
         The trial court never ruled on this motion but, as is discussed later in the facts, Mattingly was eventually
       removed as personal representative of the Estate.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                                 Page 9 of 30
               Investigations is expedient. She may, of course, continue to
               pursue partial reimbursement from Imogene Perry, but the
               collectability of such reimbursement should not be of concern to
               the Browns.

       (Id. at 38-9.)

[13]   On March 24, 2022, the trial court granted Brown Heirs’ motion to show cause

       and scheduled a hearing on the matter for April 21, 2022. On April 21, 2022,

       Mattingly, as personal representative of the Estate, filed a motion to continue

       and a request for the trial court to appoint a special administrator for the Estate.

       The same day, the trial court entered an order appointing Anne Poindexter as

       the Estate’s special administrator.

[14]   Also on April 21, 2022, Perry filed a motion to intervene in the administration

       of the Estate. She indicated she would like to intervene because “[t]his court

       has entered a judgment against her for $36,505, and it does not appear that any

       formal complaint was made against her or that sufficient service of summons, if

       any, occurred.” (Id. at 40.) The trial court granted Perry’s motion the same

       day.

[15]   On May 3, 2022, Perry filed her motion for relief from judgment alleging she

       was entitled to relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(1), (2), (4), and (8). She

       asserted the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over her because

       “[t]here was neither a complaint nor service of process” and because she did not

       have the minimum contacts with Indiana necessary for the trial court to confer

       personal jurisdiction over her. (Id. at 43.) She also disputed whether she was

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024      Page 10 of 30
required to, or was currently, holding the disbursed funds in a constructive

trust. 8 Additionally, she argued she had the meritorious defenses of fraud and

dispute over an amount of money. She alleged:

        [Mattingly] is the personal representative [of the Estate] and the
        attorney for the personal representative. She is in a conflict of
        interest because as the personal representative, she appears to
        have a claim against herself for her malfeasance or malpractice
        over her legal determination that Imogene Perry was the sole
        heir. After Ms. Mattingly paid money to her, she decided that
        her determination was wrong and that other heirs might exist. . .
        . Therefore, she has wrongfully pursued Ms. Perry, and has done
        so in the wrong state, to get the money back. Even if Ms.
        Mattingly would have some claim for equitable relief, she is
        blocked from that relief by her “unclean hands.”

        The dispute over the amount of money is another meritorious
        defense. This court entered a judgment against Ms. Perry for the
        full amount of the $36,505. The other parties in this litigation do
        not claim that she is entitled to nothing. . . . Ms. Perry contends
        that she is not obligated to return money and if so, it ought to be
        after a determination by a court having jurisdiction over her. If
        Ms. Mattingly erred, she should correct the error by paying those
        individuals who have been harmed by it, not pursuing Ms. Perry.

(Id. at 44-5.)

8
 We cannot ascertain whether Mattingly informed Perry that she should hold the funds sent to her in a
constructive trust until the Estate was closed because the record before us does not contain any
documentation regarding the money sent to Perry.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                          Page 11 of 30
[16]   Perry attached an affidavit to the motion in which she affirmed, in relevant

       part, “I had no meaningful chance to defend myself because of my health, my

       geography, and lack of notice. I do not recall having received any summons

       providing me of notice of a claim against me.” (Id. at 47.) She further stated:

       “If Janice Mattingly made a mistake, then she should own up to it. She and

       others may be at fault, and I was not at fault. I accepted money that I in good

       faith believed was mine.” (Id. at 48.) On May 24, 2022, Perry filed an

       amended motion for relief from judgment wherein she asserted the trial court’s

       default judgment was void pursuant to the grounds raised in her original

       motion and Trial Rule 60(B)(6), which provides relief based upon lack of

       notice.

[17]   On June 13, 2022, Mattingly replied to Perry’s interrogatories, sent sometime

       before that date. In response to those interrogatories, as is relevant here,

       Mattingly indicated she did not have communication with Perry via email or

       text message, but instead she “exchanged emails with Ms. Perry’s daughter.” 9

       (Id. at 79.)

[18]   On June 14, 2022, Poindexter, as special representative of the Estate, filed a

       petition to convert the Estate from unsupervised to supervised because there

       were “significant conflicts with the case.” (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at 8.) On

       9
         Mattingly’s response indicated the relevant emails were attached, but the attachments do not appear in the
       record before us.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                            Page 12 of 30
       June 15, 2022, the trial court granted Poindexter’s request. It also scheduled a

       hearing on Perry’s motion for relief from judgment for July 13, 2022.

[19]   On July 12, 2022, the Estate filed its response to Perry’s motion for relief from

       judgment. The response first laid out the procedural history of the case and

       responded to Perry’s personal jurisdiction and meritorious defenses arguments.

       In conclusion, the Estate stated:

               22. Perry’s execution of a contract and Limited Power of
               Attorney with Lauth concerning Lauth engaging third persons
               and acting on Perry’s behalf concerning the recovery of any
               estate assets to which Perry was entitled from the Estate of
               Richard Abbott was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over
               Perry with respect to the Court’s order concerning the return of
               estate funds pursuant to both Ind. Trial Rule 4.4 and the Due
               Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, Perry,
               who admittedly acted with no fraudulent intent to induce the
               personal representative to send Perry the estate funds in question,
               is nonetheless holding said estate funds in a constructive trust.
               To find otherwise would result in injustice to the other
               beneficiaries even in the absence of fraudulent intent.

               23. A close review of the docket in this cause however does not
               reveal that Perry was properly notified of the hearing. The
               docket does not show distribution to her of the Motion for the
               return of funds [or] the Order following the hearing. However
               fundamental issues of fairness due [sic] require her to have been
               notified and to have had a meaningful opportunity to participate.

       (Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 63.) Based thereon, the Estate asked the court to

       deny the portion of Perry’s motion for relief from judgment that sought relief

       for a lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Estate indicated it did “not object to

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024      Page 13 of 30
       the Order being set aside and a new hearing date and time being served upon

       Ms. Perry.” (Id.)

[20]   On July 19, 2023, the trial court issued an order on Perry’s motion for relief

       from judgment:

               1. On January 5, 2022, this Court entered an Order requiring
               Imogene Perry to return to the Estate of Richard Abbott the
               amount of $36,505.00 on or before January 21, 2022.

               2. On March 10, 2022 this Court granted the Personal
               Representative’s Motion to Reduce Order to Judgment. A
               Judgment of $36,505.00 plus judgment interest beginning
               January 21, 2022 was entered against Imogene Perry.

               3. On May 3, 2022, Imogene Perry, by counsel, filed a Motion
               for Relief from Judgment and accompanying affidavit. On May
               24, 2022, Imogene Perry filed an Amended Motion for Relief
               from Judgment. The motion alleges the Court lacked personal
               jurisdiction over Imogene Perry and erred in entering a judgment
               against her.

               4. On July 13, 2022, the Special Administrator filed a response
               to the Motion for Relief from Judgment. The response does not
               object to the Court setting aside the judgment, but disputes
               whether the Court lacks jurisdiction against Imogene Perry.

               5. A hearing was set on this matter for July 13, 2022 but was
               reset due to congestion in the Court’s calendar.

       (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at 11.) The trial court vacated its January 5, 2022,

       order for return of Estate funds and vacated its March 10, 2022, judgment

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024    Page 14 of 30
       against Perry. It reset the issue of Perry’s motion for relief from judgment,

       specifically the issue of personal jurisdiction, for August 22, 2022. On July 22,

       2022, Poindexter, as representative of the Estate, filed a motion to continue the

       August 22, 2022, hearing. The trial court granted the motion to continue and

       rescheduled the hearing for November 2, 2022.

[21]   On October 21, 2022, Perry filed her reply to the Estate’s response to her

       motion for relief from judgment. In reiterating her arguments regarding

       personal jurisdiction, Perry noted the issue of notice could be dispositive. Perry

       argued, regarding any error in her receipt of Estate funds, “Ms. Mattingly

       should be accountable to the estate for her negligence and breach of duty if she

       overpaid Ms. Petty [sic]. Instead of being accountable, she has misused court

       proceedings to get an improper default judgment against Ms. Perry.”

       (Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 65) (internal footnote omitted). She further

       asserted:

               Ms. Perry was solicited by Lauth as part of its business model
               with Ms. Mattingly. Mr. [sic] Perry did not pick Hamilton
               County as a venue. She did not petition to open the Abbott
               estate. She did not pick Janice Mattingly as the personal
               representative. She did not talk to Ms. Mattingly. She was just
               an heir.

       (Id. at 73.) Perry also reiterated her arguments regarding her meritorious

       defenses for relief from judgment. In conclusion of those arguments, she stated:

                      Ms. Mattingly did not have clean hands and did not do
               equity. She opened the estate in the wrong venue, negligently

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024      Page 15 of 30
                  administered the estate, mishandled the estate’s money, ignored
                  proper legal process to get a judgment against Ms. Perry,
                  breached her fiduciary duty to account to the estate for her own
                  mistake, and became entangled in conflicts of interest. She
                  delayed withdrawing as personal representative.

                         As to conflicts, Ms. Mattingly was concurrently personal
                  representative and attorney for the personal representative. As
                  an attorney, she knew that she as a personal representative had
                  certain duties, including the duty to account for her mistakes.
                  After she made a mistake her personal financial interests
                  interfered with her fiduciary duties. She has never accounted to
                  the estate, thus causing delay and expense to the estate. Her
                  conflicts and other behavior disqualify the estate for any relief
                  under the idea of constructive trust.

       (Id. at 75-6.)

[22]   On November 2, 2022, the trial court held the hearing 10 regarding the issue of

       its personal jurisdiction over Perry. Following the hearing, Brown Heirs

       submitted proposed findings:

                  1. That Imogene Perry has received a distribution from the estate
                  in an amount greater than the amount to which she was entitled
                  as one of the six heirs of the decedent.

                  2. Notwithstanding Ms. Perry’s receipt of an excessive amount,
                  certain due process requirements were not met in proceedings in
                  this court, and the judgment against her should be vacated,
                  without prejudice to any party’s right to resume proceedings to

       10
            A transcript of this hearing is not in the record presented on appeal.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024          Page 16 of 30
        recover any excess amount that cannot be recovered from the
        initial personal representative (or Lauth Investigations, Inc. in the
        event that it is properly made a party to these proceedings).

        3. Proceedings against Ms. Perry at the present time may divert
        resources better applied to such actions as may be necessary to
        recover restitution from Janice Mattingly, the initial personal
        representative, and/or from Lauth Investigations, whose fee
        agreement was only with Ms. Perry.

        4. The judgment against Ms. Perry should be vacated, and
        proceedings against Ms. Perry should be stayed pending such
        actions as may be necessary to obtain restitution from Janice
        Mattingly and/or Lauth Investigations.

(Id. at 81-2.) Similarly, Perry submitted a proposed order in which the trial

court would vacate the judgment and dismiss the case against her. On

November 9, 2022, the trial court issued its order denying Perry’s motion to set

aside judgment. Therein, it found and concluded:

        1. A Motion for Order for Return of Estate Funds was filed, and
           Imogene Perry was notified by certified mail of the motion
           and hearing, as set forth in the Court’s Order on Hearing of
           December 28, 2021;

        2. Trial Rule 4.4 provides for jurisdiction when the non-resident
           is doing business, or has done business, in Indiana;

        3. Imogene Perry signed a Claimant Agreement as well as a
           Letter of Agreement and Contract for Genealogical Research
           Services with Lauth Investigations, Inc., an Indiana company
           (“Lauth”), and which contract was pursuant to Indiana law
           for their recovery of assets for the Estate of Richard Abbott;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024      Page 17 of 30
               4. Imogene Perry also signed a limited power of attorney for
                  Lauth to act, including the power to transact business with
                  third parties on her behalf, including courts; and

               5. Lauth hired the former Personal Representative to open the
                  estate and recover funds. Funds were recovered and then
                  improperly distributed in favor of Ms. Perry to the exclusion
                  of all other heirs. Perry’s actions are sufficient pursuant to
                  Indiana law to allow for personal jurisdiction over her in this
                  Estate.

       (Id. at 13-14) (formatting in original).

[23]   On November 22, 2022, Perry filed her Notice of Appeal 11 with this court. On

       November 23, 2022, Poindexter, on behalf of the Estate filed a petition for

       instructions with the trial court. She indicated “no person in the undersigned’s

       office practices in appellate work” and asked the trial court to “appoint

       alternate counsel to respond to and address the appeal initialed by opposing

       counsel.” (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at 13.) On December 7, 2023, the trial court

       ordered: “On review of the case, it does not appear the Estate has sufficient

       financial resources available to pursue an appeal. Accordingly, the court

       instructs the Special Administrator to take no further action as to the pending

       11
         The caption of the trial court’s order states the name of this case as “In re: the Unsupervised Estate of
       Richard Abbott, Deceased” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 13) (original formatting omitted). Perry’s notice of
       appeal states the name of the case as “Imogene Perry, Appellant-defendant below v. Anne H. Poindexter,
       Personal Representative of the Supervised Estate of Richard Abbott, Appellee-plaintiff below And Michael P.
       Brown and Phillip Brown, Interested Parties.” (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at 15.) The caption of the case in
       Odyssey is “Unsupervised Estate: Imogene Abbott Perry v. Janice Mandla Mattingly.”

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                         Page 18 of 30
       appeal.” (“Judge’s Order of December 6, 2023” filed by the trial court on

       December 7, 2023.) 12

[24]   On January 25, 2023, Mattingly filed a motion to intervene and to stay in

       Perry’s appeal with our court. Therein, she stated:

                1. In this action, the Appellant, Imogene Perry, complains
                regarding an error made by the then Personal Representative,
                Janice Mandla Mattingly.

                2. Imogene Perry received sums from the estate that were to be
                divided to other heirs.

                3. Immediately upon becoming aware of the error is [sic] the
                distribution of the estate, Janice Mandla Mattingly immediately
                sought to correct the error.

                                                        *****

                12. Mattingly’s appearance in this matter is necessary to rebut
                the claims of the Appellant in that it is of Mattingly that she
                complains.

                13. The Special Administrator has not appeared in this matter to
                defend the Trial Court’s Order, nor does it appear that she
                intends to appear. On December 7, 2022, the Trial Court

       12
         This order and others cited herein appear in the trial court record in Odyssey but not in the appellate
       record provided by the parties.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                              Page 19 of 30
               instructed the Special Administrator to take no further action as
               to the pending appeal.

       (“Motion to Intervene” filed with the Court of Appeals on January 25, 2023.)

[25]   On January 26, 2023, Perry filed a response to Mattingly’s motion to intervene.

       Therein, Perry argued:

               1. [Mattingly’s] motion cites no law, rule, or other legal
               authority to permit intervention. Those omissions justify denial
               of the motion outright.

               2. Imogene Perry is appealing a judgment against her and in
               favor of the Estate of Abbott for $36,505. There is no judgment
               for or against Ms. Mattingly.

                                                      *****

               10. The purpose of Ms. Perry’s appeal is to undo the wrongful
               judgment [the denial of her motion for relief from judgment].

               11. Ms. Mattingly says in paragraphs 12-13 of her motion that
               she does not think that the current personal representative is
               going to be involved in the appeal. Thus, Ms. Mattingly thinks it
               is necessary for Ms. Mattingly to act.

               12. Her motion does not cite any statute, case, or rule to permit
               her to stand in the shoes of the current personal representative.

               13. She has no standing because a former personal representative
               of an estate has no standing to assert claims for the estate. See,
               Simon v. Simon, 957 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). That
               seems axiomatic.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024      Page 20 of 30
               14. Ms. Mattingly cannot make legal arguments that the current
               personal representative does not want to make, and there is no
               valid legal argument that the court had personal jurisdiction
               when there was no complaint or summons or service.

               15. It is a conflict of interest because Ms. Mattingly is putting her
               personal financial concerns at odds with the interests of her
               former client, the Estate of Abbott. Ms. Mattingly was the
               attorney for the estate.

               16. I informed Steven Fillenwarth, attorney for Ms. Mattingly,
               of [Simon v. Simon, 957 N.E.2d 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011] and of
               the conflicts of interest. I required that he withdraw the motion
               by a certain time. He asked for more time, which was granted.
               The time has passed. He has not withdrawn the motion.

               17. Ms. Mattingly’s motion is not a good faith filing. It is not
               supported by argument or by law. It is contrary to law.

               18. Because Ms. Mattingly lacks standing and because she is
               otherwise not entitled to intervention, the Court of Appeals
               should deny her motion.

       (“Perry’s Opposition to Mattingly’s Motion to Intervene” filed January 26,

       2023, with the Court of Appeals, pages 1-3.)

[26]   On February 1, 2023, Brown Heirs filed a motion for leave to proceed against

       Mattingly and Lauth. Therein, Brown Heirs asked the trial court to allow them

       to pursue an action against Mattingly and Lauth. Brown Heirs alleged they

       were “entitled to five-sixths of the distributable estate assets, yet, as a direct and

       proximate result of the negligence of Mattingly and Lauth have for most of the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024        Page 21 of 30
       life of this estate been denied the distributions to which they have been

       entitled.” (“Motion for Leave to Proceed Against Janice Mattingly and Lauth

       Investigations, Inc.” filed February 1, 2023, with the trial court, page 1)

       (original formatting omitted). Further, Brown Heirs alleged they “should not

       have to await the result of an appeal by Imogene Perry in order to proceed

       against Mattingly and Lauth, and indeed could not be made whole by Imogene

       Perry even in the unlikely event that she surrendered the entire amount received

       to the estate.” (Id. at page 2.)

[27]   On February 1, 2023, Mattingly, “individually and as counsel for Lauth

       Investigations International[,]” filed in the trial court a motion to intervene and

       a motion to stay. (Appellee’s App. Vol. II at 25.) Therein she stated, in support

       of the argument that she and Lauth should be permitted to intervene in the trial

       court’s case involving the Estate pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 24(A):

               1. On or about February 1, 2023, Michael P. Brown and Phillip
               Brown, by counsel, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed Against Janice
               Mattingly and Lauth Investigations, Inc. (sic).

               2. The funds demanded by Michael P. Brown and Phillip Brown
               are now in the possession of Imogene Perry. This Court has
               ordered Ms. Perry to return the funds but she has not done so.

               3. Ms. Perry has filed an appeal of this Court’s Order to return
               the funds which is now pending as Imogene Perry, Appellant-
               defendant below v. Anne H. Poindexter, Personal Representative of the
               Supervised Estate of Richard Abbott, Appellee-plaintiff below, Cause
               no. 22A-EU-02774.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024            Page 22 of 30
        4. Because the undersigned and Lauth Investigations
        International (hereinafter “LII”) have been named in the Motion
        for Leave filed by Messrs. Brown, it is necessary for the
        undersigned and LII to intervene in this action in order to defend
        their positions.

                                               *****

        13. The undersigned and LII request that this matter be stayed.

(Id. at 24-5) (emphasis in original). On February 7, 2023, Brown Heirs filed an

objection to Mattingly’s motion to stay. Therein, they stated:

        1. Because Michael P. Brown and Phillip Brown and their
        siblings and successors(s), they [sic] will not be made whole even
        if Imogene Perry disgorges every cent that was improperly
        distributed to her under Mattingly’s handling of the estate. The
        amount received by Ms. Perry was net of an exorbitant payment
        to Lauth.

        2. The payment to Lauth was exorbitant and unreasonable in
        that

                 a. On information and belief, and subject to discovery,
                 Lauth’s research was negligent, resulting in the exclusion
                 of five-sixths of the proper heirs to the estate;

                 b. The Browns were not parties to Ms. Perry’s agreement
                 with Lauth, and did not need or benefit from the services
                 of Lauth;

                 c. Any percentage-based fee charged by Lauth should
                 apply only to Ms. Perry’s share of estate assets.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024          Page 23 of 30
                3. The Browns have incurred attorney fees which would not
                have been necessary but for the misconduct of Mattingly and
                Lauth, and have been denied the use of money they should have
                received at least one year ago. The court should award both
                attorney fees and interest to the Browns. Further delay will
                increase these amounts.

                4. Collection of any amount from Ms. Perry may serve as partial
                reimbursement to Mattingly and Lauth, but the liability of
                Mattingly and Lauth to the Browns is not premised upon the
                collectability of any sum Ms. Perry may be determined to owe.

       (“Objection to Stay” filed with the trial court on February 7, 2023, pages 1-2.)

       Additionally, Brown Heirs alleged,

                Mattingly’s representation of both herself and Lauth may
                implicate Ind. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3.7, since she will likely be
                a necessary witness at trial. Because her representation of Lauth
                may be provisional or temporary, the Browns do not move to
                disqualify her at this time, but reserve the right to do so at a
                future time.

       (Id. at n.1.)

[28]   On February 20, 2023, our court issued an order that temporarily stayed Perry’s

       appeal and remanded the issue of Mattingly’s motion to intervene 13 to the trial

       13
          As noted by the Brown Heirs, at the time of her motion to intervene in this matter as well as her motion to
       intervene in the underlying trial court case, Mattingly was not personal representative of the Estate and one
       of the ties she had in the trial court proceedings and this appeal was her interest in the payment she received
       during her tenure as personal representative. We note that generally a former personal representative does
       not have standing to argue on an estate’s behalf. See Simon v. Simon, 957 N.E.2d 980, 988 (Ind. Ct. App.
       2011) (although Bren Simon was personal representative at the time of the interlocutory order prompting

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                              Page 24 of 30
       court. Our court ordered the trial court to rule on Mattingly’s motion to

       intervene within ten days of our order. On February 27, 2023, the trial court

       found the motion to intervene and motion to stay “are meritorious and should

       be granted.” (“Order Granting Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay” filed

       by the trial court on February 27, 2023.) Based thereon, it ordered that “Janice

       Mandla Mattingly and Lauth Investigations International shall be permitted to

       intervene in this action and that this matter is STAYED pending resolution of

       the appeal filed by Imogene Perry against the estate.” (Id.) (emphasis in

       original). After Mattingly filed a status report indicating the trial court’s grant

       of the February 1, 2023, motion to intervene and motion to stay, our court

       issued an order declaring Mattingly’s motion to intervene in Perry’s appeal as

       moot based on the trial court’s February 27, 2023, order. Mattingly filed her

       brief on May 16, 2023.

       Discussion and Decision
[29]   Perry argues the January 5, 2022, default judgment and the March 10, 2022,

       judgment against her are void. Default judgments serve several important

       policy objectives including “maintaining an orderly and efficient judicial

       system, facilitating the speedy determination of justice, and enforcing

       compliance with procedural rules[.]” Huntington Nat. Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp.,

       appeal, she did not retain standing to present an argument on appeal after her removal as personal
       representative of the estate).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                            Page 25 of 30
       39 N.E.3d 652, 659 (Ind. 2015). However, these objectives “should not come at

       the expense of professionalism, civility, and common courtesy.” Id. As our

       Indiana Supreme Court has explained, “default judgment ‘is not a trap to be set

       by counsel to catch unsuspecting litigants’ and should not be used as a ‘gotcha’

       device[.]” Id. (quoting Smith v. Johnston, 711 N.E.2d 1259, 1264 (Ind. 1999)).

[30]   Perry sought relief from the default under Trial Rule 60(B). Pursuant to

       Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6), the trial court may relieve a party from a judgment

       if “the judgment is void.” Our standard of review regarding a motion for relief

       from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(B)(6) “requires no discretion on the part of

       the trial court because either the judgment is void or it is valid” and, thus, our

       review is de novo. Rice v. Comm’r, Indiana Dep’t of Env’t. Mgmt., 782 N.E.2d

       1000, 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Hotmix & Bituminous Equip. Inc. v.

       Hardrock Equip. Corp., 719 N.E.2d 824, 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).

[31]   Perry argues the trial court erred when it denied her motion for relief from

       judgment because she did not receive adequate notice of the Estate’s motion for

       return of funds and/or the December 28 hearing. A judgment against a party

       can be void if the party did not receive proper notice of the proceedings. Smith

       v. Tisdal, 484 N.E.2d 42, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). “Notice must reasonably

       convey the required information to the affected party, must afford a reasonable

       time for that party to respond, and is constitutionally adequate when the

       practicalities and peculiarities of the case are reasonably met.” In re M.L.K.,

       751 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “[P]rocess which is a mere gesture is

       not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024      Page 26 of 30
       informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Munster v.

       Groce, 829 N.E.2d 52, 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover

       Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)).

[32]   The trial court’s order denying Perry’s motion to set aside the judgment against

       her indicated: “A Motion for Order for Return of Estate Funds was filed, and

       Imogene Perry was notified by certified mail of the motion and hearing, as set

       forth in the Court’s Order on Hearing of December 28, 2021[.]” (Appellant’s App.

       Vol. 2 at 13.) That order on the December 28, 2021, hearing included a finding

       that: “Perry received notice of the hearing via certified mail. Exhibit 1 shows

       receipt of notice of this hearing received on December 24, 2021.” (Id. at 32.)

       We are uncertain of the validity of that finding as Exhibit 1 is not in the record

       on appeal and, although Perry was on the distribution list for the motion for

       return of funds, her name does not appear on the distribution list for the order

       scheduling the December 28 hearing. As such, we are uncertain that Perry

       received notice of both the motion for return of funds and the hearing to be held

       on December 28. Nevertheless, even if we assume for the sake of argument that

       Perry received notice of both the motion and the hearing thereon, the notice she

       received on December 24, 2021, was inadequate.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024     Page 27 of 30
[33]   If the notice was of the Estate’s motion for return of funds, that motion sought

       to require Perry to pay at least $18,252.50, 14 which she received as part of the

       settlement of the Estate. While not titled as such, the motion for return of funds

       was an effort by Mattingly, on behalf of the Estate, to bring Perry, who was not

       a party to the Estate action, into the matter as a third-party defendant because

       Mattingly, on behalf of the Estate, alleged Perry may be liable for all or part of

       the portion of the Estate sought by Brown Heirs. See T.R. 14(A) (defending

       party “may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a

       party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s

       claim against him”). Thus, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 4(B), upon “the

       filing of a complaint or an equivalent pleading” the complaining party shall

       furnish the clerk of court with sufficient copies of the filing to serve notice of the

       complaint or equivalent pleading and a summons on the opposing party.

       Under Indiana Trial Rule 4.15(f), the summons must be “reasonably calculated

       to inform the person to be served that an action has been instituted against him,

       the name of the court, and the time within which he is required to respond.”

       After a party receives notice of a claim or equivalent pleading, they have twenty

       days to respond thereto. T.R. 6(C).

       14
         The fact that the amount requested in the motion for return of funds, $18,252.50, was not the same amount
       the trial court ordered Perry to return in its default judgment - $36,505.00 - further supports the importance of
       Perry’s ability to defend herself against the Estate’s claim.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024                               Page 28 of 30
[34]   If Perry received notice of the Estate’s motion via certified mail on December

       24, 2021, when a hearing on the matter was to be held on December 28, 2021,

       we agree with Perry that the short notice

               stamped out important legal rights of Ms. Perry, including but
               not necessarily limited to her rights to (1) meaningful notice and
               opportunity to be heard, (2) to obtain legal counsel, (3) to ask for
               transfer of venue, (4) to move for dismissal, (5) to ask for a jury
               trial, (6) to engage in discovery, (7) to join additional defendants,
               and (8) to petition for removal of the personal representative.

       (Appellant’s Br. at 16-17.) The notice here was served in a way that was not

       calculated to give Perry ample notice of the proceedings involving her or to

       allow her any time to prepare her defense to that motion. In fact, we conclude

       it was a mere gesture done in a manner intended to, at best, deny Perry her

       right to respond within twenty days under Indiana Trial Rule 6(C) and, at

       worst, catch Perry in a “gotcha” moment intended to bring about a default

       judgment. Therefore, if the notice in question was notice of the Estate’s motion

       for return of funds, it was not sufficient under the Indiana Trial Rules. See, e.g.,

       King v. United Leasing, 765 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (default judgment

       against King reversed because King did not receive sufficient notice of the claim

       against him).

[35]   If the notice was intended to inform Perry of the December 28, 2021, hearing,

       the circumstances are equally problematic. December 24, 2021, was a Friday,

       and December 28, 2021, was a Tuesday. Perry is an elderly woman with health

       problems who was, at the relevant time, domiciled in Georgia. Notice was

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024       Page 29 of 30
       served to her just prior to a major holiday, that is, Christmas on December

       25, 2021. While her ability to travel in an expedient manner is unknown, it

       was unreasonable to expect Perry to, at the very least, hire a lawyer and

       procure transportation to Indiana, in that short amount of time. Regardless

       of the nature of the notice, Perry did not receive the time required by Indiana

       Trial Rule 6(C) to respond to anything involving the Estate’s motion for

       return of funds and thus the trial court erred when it denied her motion for

       relief from judgment. See, e.g., 624 Broadway LLC v. Gary Housing Authority,

       193 N.E.3d 381 (Ind. 2022) (default judgment reversed because notice sent to

       624 Broadway LLC was insufficient).

       Conclusion
[36]   The trial court erred when it denied Perry’s motion for relief from judgment

       because she did not receive notice of the Estate’s motion for return of funds

       and/or the related hearing to be held on December 28, 2021, in a way

       calculated to provide her a meaningful opportunity to appear and defend

       herself. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand. On remand, the trial

       court shall hold a hearing on all pending motions in this matter, including but

       not limited to the motion for return of funds and any motions with respect to

       the fees Perry and/or the Estate paid to Mattingly and/or Lauth.

[37]   Reversed and remanded.

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

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-EU-2774 | January 24, 2024   Page 30 of 30