Court Opinion

ID: 9955053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 16:04:59.54045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:14.421546
License: Public Domain

IN THE

            Court of Appeals of Indiana
            In the Matter of the Estate of Robin L. Ropp, Deceased.
                                          Kay L. Smith,
                                         Appellant-Petitioner                  FILED
                                                                          Mar 27 2024, 8:30 am

                                                   v.                          CLERK
                                                                           Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                              Court of Appeals
                                                                                and Tax Court

                                           Jay T. Ropp,
                                        Appellee-Respondent

                                           March 27, 2024
                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
                                          23A-EU-1168
                             Appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court
                         The Honorable Matthew J. Rentschler, Judge
                                       Trial Court Cause No.
                                        92C01-1903-EU-19

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

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024    Page 1 of 12
[1]   Kay Smith (“Smith”), as the Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Robin

      L. Ropp, Deceased (“Estate”), appeals the trial court’s “Final Order Approving

      Accounting, Personal Representatives’ and Attorneys’ Fees and Closing

      Estate.” (App. Vol. II at 16) (original formatting omitted).1 Smith argues the

      trial court erred when it determined she did not have standing to challenge the

      final accounting of the Estate. We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   Robin L. Ropp died testate on November 5, 2018. Jay Ropp (“Jay”) was

      Ropp’s husband and Smith was her mother. In Robin’s will, Jay, Smith, and

      Ronda McClure 2 were named Co-Personal Representatives. Jay and Robin’s

      children, T.R. and S.R., (collectively, “Children”) were the beneficiaries of

      Robin’s will.

[3]   Under Robin’s will, Jay was to receive sole ownership of three properties

      owned by “Bridge-Ways, LLC[.]” (Id. at 25.) Robin’s will bequeathed all other

      assets to Children, who were approximately thirteen years old at the time of

      Robin’s death. The assets bequeathed to Children were to be put in a trust and

      used “to provide for the support, maintenance, medical, optical, dental, and

      education expenses” of Children “until the youngest of them attains the age of

      1
       Both Smith and Ropp filed an Appendix, but all citations herein are to the Appendix filed by the Appellant,
      Smith.
      2
          Ronda also served as Co-Personal Representative until she resigned the designation on March 18, 2021.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024                               Page 2 of 12
      twenty-five (25) years.” (Id. at 26.) After Children turned twenty-five years old,

      they were each entitled to half of the remaining trust funds.

[4]   Robin’s will was admitted to probate on June 14, 2019, and became a

      supervised Estate with Co-Personal Representatives as named in Robin’s will.

      During the administration of the Estate, Jay performed many functions of the

      Estate such as determining assets and paying creditors, without Smith’s

      assistance or input. 3 On April 27, 2021, Smith petitioned the trial court to ask

      that it require Jay to file an accounting of the Estate. On June 1, 2021, Smith

      petitioned the trial court to remove Jay as Co-Personal Representative of the

      Estate. In that petition, Smith argued Jay had refused to share information

      about the assets of the Estate with her, was unwilling to discuss with her “any

      decisions regarding the [E]state[,]” and he had “totally failed to act in

      accordance with his fiduciary duties [to] the [E]state.” (Id. at 40.)

[5]   On July 6, 2021, Jay filed an interim accounting of the Estate with the trial

      court. On July 7, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Smith’s two petitions.

      On August 9, 2021, the trial court issued its order denying Smith’s request to

      remove Jay as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate. It further named

      Robin’s father, Eric Smith, as the trustee of the trusts for the benefit of Children

      and ordered Jay to provide several documents regarding the Estate’s assets to

      3
       The extent to which McClure was involved in the administration of the Estate is unclear from the Record
      before us.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024                            Page 3 of 12
      Eric. Finally, the trial court granted Smith’s petition to require Jay to file an

      accounting of the Estate “as a ‘final report’” by August 16, 2021. (Id. at 45.)

[6]   On August 18, 2021, Jay filed a final report for the Estate. On September 8,

      2021, Smith filed a renewed motion to remove Jay as Co-Personal

      Representative of the Estate and “for Order Requiring Production of

      Information and Money.” (Id. at 63) (original formatting omitted). Therein,

      Smith argued Jay had not complied with the trial court’s August 9 order as he

      had not provided the required documents to Eric as the trustee of the trusts for

      the benefit of Children and had not filed the Estate’s final report by August 16,

      2021. On September 21, 2021, the trial court issued its order finding Smith was

      mistaken regarding the filing of the final report, as Jay filed it on August 18,

      2021. Further, the trial court concluded Jay “substantially, if imperfectly,

      abided by the prior order of this Court requiring transfer of trust assets.” (Id. at

      70.)

[7]   On October 21, 2021, Jay filed a supplemental report to the Estate’s final

      accounting (collectively, hereinafter “Estate Final Accounting”). On December

      23, 2021, Smith filed her response to the Estate Final Accounting and alleged

      there were several Estate assets missing from the accounting. On December 23,

      2021, Jay filed a motion to dismiss Smith’s response to the Estate Final

      Accounting in which he asserted Smith lacked standing to challenge his

      accounting.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024         Page 4 of 12
[8]    On March 14, 2022, the trial court granted Jay’s motion. It ruled Smith was

       not an “interested person” under Indiana Code section 29-1-1-3(a)(18) and thus

       could not contest the Estate Final Accounting. The trial court noted Smith may

       be entitled to personal representative fees and attorney costs, but most of her

       complaints regarding the Estate Final Accounting were attempts to second

       guess Jay’s administration of the Estate at every turn. The trial court noted

       Children were the only parties that could be prejudiced by any errors, and they

       had not challenged any of the Estate Final Accounting.

[9]    On April 12, 2022, Smith asked the trial court to certify its March 14 order for

       interlocutory appeal, and the trial court did so on April 29, 2022. We declined

       to accept jurisdiction over the matter on June 28, 2022. On July 12, 2022,

       Smith filed a motion for relief from judgment and argued the trial court erred

       when it granted Jay’s motion to dismiss her response to the Estate Final

       Accounting. The trial court denied that motion on July 14, 2022.

[10]   On March 7, 2023, Smith filed a petition requesting approval of personal

       representative fees and attorney’s fees. The trial court held a hearing on the

       matter on April 5, 2023. During that hearing, Smith reasserted her challenges

       to the Estate Final Accounting. Consistent with its order of March 14, 2022,

       the trial court denied Smith the opportunity to object thereto and only allowed

       the parties to present evidence regarding the amount of personal representative

       and attorney’s fees due to each Co-Personal Representative.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024       Page 5 of 12
[11]   On April 25, 2023, the trial court issued its order on the proceedings. Therein,

       it concluded Smith did not have standing to object to the Estate Final

       Accounting. The trial court approved the Estate Final Accounting because no

       interested party had objected. Additionally, the trial court granted Smith’s

       request for $24,421.73 in personal representative fees and $73,542.95 in

       attorney’s fees, both of which were to be paid by the Estate. It further granted

       Jay $21,486.50 in personal representative fees and $35,240.00 in attorney’s fees,

       both also to be paid by the Estate. The trial court closed the Estate.

       Discussion and Decision
[12]   Smith argues the trial court erred when it determined she did not have standing

       as a Co-Personal Representative to challenge the Estate Final Accounting. She

       makes two arguments regarding this issue – first, that she has standing by virtue

       of her position as a Co-Personal Representative, as she is required in that role to

       act as a fiduciary on behalf of the Estate; and second, that she is an “interested

       party” pursuant to Indiana Code section 29-1-1-3(18).

[13]   As we explained regarding standing in Inlow v. Henderson, Daily, Withrow &

       DeVoe,

               [i]n order to invoke a court’s jurisdiction, a plaintiff must
               demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit and
               must show that he or she has sustained or was in immediate
               danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a result of the conduct
               at issue. To put it another way, for a plaintiff to have standing
               his interest must be a present, substantial interest, as
               distinguished from a mere expectancy or future, contingent
               interest.
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024        Page 6 of 12
       787 N.E.2d 385, 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (internal citations and quotation

       marks omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Personal representatives have a

       “present and substantial interest in the estate’s assets.” Matter of Guardianship of

       Lamey, 87 N.E.3d 512, 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Therefore, as Smith was a

       Co-Personal Representative of the Estate, she had standing to challenge the

       distribution of the Estate’s assets.

[14]   However, Smith does not have standing as an interested person as defined by

       29-1-1-3(18). That statute defines an interested persons as “heirs, devisees,

       spouses, creditors, or any others having a property right in or claim against the

       estate of a decedent being administered.” Id. Smith does not fall into any of

       these categories. Thus, she does not have standing to challenge the Estate Final

       Accounting as an interested person.

[15]   Despite the fact that Smith had standing as a Co-Personal Representative, the

       trial court did not err when it denied her objection to the Estate Final

       Accounting. Here, the trial court sua sponte made findings to support its

       decision to approve the Estate Final Accounting and close the Estate. Thus, the

       findings control our review and judgment only as to those issues specifically

       referenced in the findings. Samples v. Wilson, 12 N.E.3d 946, 949-50 (Ind. Ct.

       App. 2014). When the trial court does not make specific findings on an issue,

       we apply a general judgment standard, and we may affirm on any legal theory

       supported by the evidence adduced at trial. Id. at 950.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024         Page 7 of 12
[16]   Over the five years the Estate has been pending for distribution, Smith has filed

       multiple motions that have unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings. For

       example, as noted in the facts, Smith twice filed for Jay to be removed as a Co-

       Personal Representative. In the first motion, she alleged she should be named

       the sole Personal Representative of the Estate because she and Jay could not get

       along. In her second motion to remove Jay as Co-Personal Representative, she

       asserted that Jay had not filed an accounting as required in a previous order of

       the trial court when, in fact, Jay had filed the required accounting almost a

       month before. Both of the motions to remove Jay as co-Personal

       Representative were denied.

[17]   In all motions filed before the trial court, Smith repeatedly complained that she

       should be given access to financial records regarding rental property, insurance

       proceeds, and other assets. At every turn, she has questioned Jay’s accounting

       of the assets of the Estate, going so far as to allege he misrepresented and

       mismanaged Estate funds by paying for line items she did not approve, failing

       to provide documentation she requested, and failing to account for her Co-

       Personal Representative fees and attorney’s fees in the Estate Final Accounting.

       In one filing, she asserted,

               a large sum of cash, in excess of $100,000 was observed in the
               marital residence that has not been accounted for and
               presumably come [sic] from rental properties and should have
               been an [Estate] asset or at least half. Also, [Smith] provided
               Robin with $125,000 in cash that was sewn into Robin’s purse to
               take with her to Europe for further medical treatments for cancer
               and to be administered other medication not available in the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024        Page 8 of 12
               United States. The trip never took place, the purse and cash have
               not been reported as an asset of the [Estate]. Additionally, there
               was $35,000 in a green gym bag showed to Eric by Jay, and also,
               Jay told Nicole Smith that he, Jay, found $50,000 in a paper bag
               under the bed.

       (App. Vol. II at 82-3.) As the trial court stated in its March 14, 2022, order

       regarding Smith’s objection to the Estate’s Final Accounting,

               the vast majority of [Smith’s] claims focus on complaints about
               her desire to supervise and second-guess what Jay is doing.
               Ultimately if Jay is in fact improperly administering the [Estate],
               the only parties who might suffer prejudice would be Jay and
               Jay’s children. Thus far, the children have lodged no complaints.

       (Id. at 96.) The trial court ruled Smith was permitted to challenge only the

       amount of Co-Personal Representative and attorney’s fees she was due.

[18]   After the denial of her objection to the Estate Final Accounting, Smith then

       further prolonged the proceedings by requesting the matter be certified for

       interlocutory appeal. When her attempts to challenge the Estate Final

       Accounting via interlocutory appeal were unsuccessful, Smith filed a motion for

       relief from the trial court’s March 18, 2022, order. The trial court denied that

       motion two days after it was filed.

[19]   The matter then languished for another year. On March 7, 2023, Smith filed

       her motion requesting the approval of her Co-Personal Representative and

       attorney’s fees. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on April 5, 2023,

       and Smith again tried to argue mismanagement of the Estate despite being told

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024        Page 9 of 12
       multiple times by the trial court, even during that hearing, that she was not

       permitted to do so.

[20]   Without objection by the Estate, the trial court paid Smith $24,421.73 in

       personal representative fees and $73,542.95 in attorney’s fees - almost $100,000

       - which accounts for approximately 17% of the Estate’s assets meant primarily

       for Children. In contrast, the trial court granted $21,486.50 in personal

       representative fees and $35,240.00 in attorney’s fees - a total $56,726.50 - to Jay,

       who did all the work to identify the assets of the Estate and distribute them

       based on Robin’s wishes. Had Smith not questioned essentially every decision

       and accounting Jay filed, his attorney’s fees would likely have been

       considerably less, thus leaving more assets for distribution primarily to

       Children.

[21]   As we recently explained in Sims v. Buttigieg:

               “There is no right to engage in abusive litigation.” Moreover,
               “the state has a legitimate interest in the preservation of valuable
               judicial administrative resources,” and “[e]very resource that
               courts devote to an abusive litigant is a resource denied to other
               legitimate cases with good-faith litigants.” In the interest of
               preserving these resources and apart from statutes or rules of
               court, “courts have inherent authority to impose reasonable
               restrictions on any abusive litigant.”

       194 N.E.3d 80, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (internal citations omitted), trans. denied,

       cert. denied 144 S. Ct. 609 (2023). Even though she was not a beneficiary under

       Robin’s will, Smith depleted 1/6 of the Estate funds meant for her

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024         Page 10 of 12
       grandchildren, who were approximately thirteen years old at the time of

       Robin’s death in 2019, at the time the Estate was opened. When the trial court

       approved the Estate Final Accounting in 2023, Children were over eighteen

       years old. Per the provisions of Robin’s will, the funds she bequeathed

       Children could have been used for things like medical expenses and educational

       expenses. Based on the Estate Final Accounting, the only funds used for

       Children’s benefit were payments toward their cell phone bills.

[22]   Smith’s vexatious and repetitive challenges of Jay’s handling of estate matters

       has deprived her grandchildren of the inheritance that their mother, Robin,

       wished to be used to their benefit. The trial court did not err when it refused to

       entertain Smith’s repetitive objections to the Estate Final Accounting. Despite

       the fact she had standing as a Co-Personal Representative to challenge the

       Estate Final Accounting, Smith engaged in behavior that was, at best,

       vexatious. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied her objection to

       the Estate Final Accounting. See, e.g., id. (courts have authority to impose

       restrictions on any litigant who persists with meritless claims).

       Conclusion
[23]   While Smith had standing to object to the Estate Final Accounting, the trial

       court did not err when it denied her repeated requests to do so because she

       unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings, which resulted in significant depletion

       of the Estate’s assets meant for Children. Accordingly, we affirm.

[24]   Affirmed.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024      Page 11 of 12
Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Jared P. Baker
Lindsay H. Lepley
Burt, Blee, Dixon, Sutton, & Bloom, LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Nathan S.J. Williams
Shambaugh Kast Beck & Williams, LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-EU-1168 | March 27, 2024   Page 12 of 12