Court Opinion

ID: 9738670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:00:22.542796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.847153
License: Public Domain

Landis, C. J.
— This is an original action in this Court for a writ of mandate directing respondent court to grant a change of venue from the county in a certain will contest action brought by relator and others in respondent court. We issued the alternative writ. The Court’s previous opinion herein which has been vacated by the granting of a rehearing herein appears in 186 N. E. 2d 881.
From the petition before us it appears that the will contest action was filed on November 16, 1961, and summons was served on the defendants on November 25 and November 27, 1961, to appear on December 11, 1961. On November 28, 1961, a general appearance was entered for the defendants by counsel. No further pleadings were filed nor were further entries made in the cause until April 11, 1962, when relators filed affidavit for change of venue from the county. The change of venue was denied and relators’ petition for writ of mandate in this Court followed. Relators contend respondent court should have granted a change of venue under Rule 1-12B providing:
“In any action except criminal no change of judge or change of venue from the county shall *261be granted except within the time herein provided. Any such application for change of judge or change of venue shall be filed not later than ten (10) days after the issues are first closed on the merits, or if the issues are closed without answer by operation of law, or where a cause is remanded for a new trial by the Appellate or Supreme Court, not later than ten (10) days after the party has knowledge the cause is ready to be set for trial....”
Respondents have filed return to the writ contending that will contests are not governed by the rules pertaining to civil procedure generally, and that the issues were closed by operation of law without the necessity of defendants filing any pleading.
The statutes pertaining to will contests provide as follows:
“Any interested person may contest the validity of any will or resist the probate thereof, at any time within six [6] months after the same has been offered for probate, by filing in the court having jurisdiction of the probate of the decedent’s will his allegations in writing verified by affidavit, setting forth the unsoundness of mind of the testator, the undue execution of the will, that the same was executed under duress, or was obtained by fraud, or any other valid objection to its validity or the probate thereof; and the executor and all other persons beneficially interested therein shall be made defendants thereto.” Burns’ §7-117 (1953 Repl.)1
“When an action is brought to contest the validity of any will as provided in this code, summons shall be served upon the defendants in the manner following:
“(1) If the defendant is a resident of the state of Indiana summons shall be served on him by the sheriff as provided in section 112(a) [§6-112(a)].
“(2) If the defendant is a nonresident of the state of Indiana notice shall be served on him as *262provided in section 112(b) [§6-112(b)].” Burns’ §7-118, (1953 Repl.)2
“At the time of filing his verified complaint, as provided by section 717 [§7-117], the plaintiff in said action, or some other person in his behalf, shall file a bond, with sufficient sureties, in such amount as shall be approved by the clerk of the court, conditioned for the due prosecution of such proceedings and for the payment of all costs therein in case judgment be rendered against him.” Burns’ §7-119 (1953 Repl.)3
“In any suit to resist the probate, or to test the validity of any will after probate, as provided in section 717 [§7-117] of this code, the burden of proof shall be upon the contestor.” Burns’ §7-120 (1953 Repl.)4
“If such determination be against the validity of such will or the competency of the proof, the court shall refuse or revoke the probate thereof; but if it be in favor of the validity and due execution of such will, probate thereof shall be admitted or ratified.” Burns’ §7-121 (1953 Repl.)5
It will be noted that there is no provision for the filing of pleadings in will contest actions other than “ . . . allegations in writing [of the contestor] verified by affidavit. ...” There is no specific provision for the filing of an answer nor is there provision to the effect that actions to contest wills are governed by the rules of procedure in civil actions.
Actions to contest wills are purely statutory proceedings, Blanchard v. Wilbur (1899), 153 Ind. 387, 392, 55 N. E. 99, 101; The Evansville, etc., Co. et al. v. Winsor, by Next Friend (1897), 148 Ind. 682, 686, 48 N. E. 592, 593, and we are therefore *263governed by the apparent intent of the legislature to indicate that while formal pleadings may be permitted in will contests, as in ordinary civil actions, such formality in the formation of issues is not necessary. See: Bartlett et al. v. Manor et al. (1897), 146 Ind. 621, 45 N. E. 1060; The Evansville, etc., Co., et al. v. Winsor, by Next Friend (1897), supra, 148 Ind. 682, 690, 48 N. E. 592, 595; State v. Marion Juvenile Court (1962), 243 Ind. 209, 212, 184 N. E. 2d 20, 21.
We believe the situation here presented is somewhat comparable to numerous proceedings concerning decedent’s estates, as for example, petitions to determine heirship. In State ex rel. Crawford, et al. v. Howard Circuit Court (1962), 242 Ind. 593, 598, 181 N. E. 2d 18, 20, 21, we recently stated:
“It may be noted that there is no provision in the Probate Code of 1953 to the effect that proceedings in decedents’ estates shall be governed by the rules pertaining to civil actions generally. Had the legislature intended to change the law in this respect it could have made provision therefor.1”
“[Footnote] 1. See Model Probate Code Comments (§10), (annotated under Burns’ §6-107, 1953 Repl.), wherein it is stated:
“ ‘In some states it is provided by statute that where there is no other applicable statute or rule, the rules of civil procedure may be applied. . . . Such legislation is not recommended. Much of the proceedings in matters of probate is administrative in character and not adversary. It is believed, therefore, that rules of civil procedure designed primarily for adversary proceedings should not be applied.’ ”
It is true in the case before us relators have alleged that at the time of the filing of the motion for change of venue there was no entry in the court’s order book setting the cause for trial. However, it should be *264noted that Rule 1-12B, supra, does not give a party-ten days after the setting of the cause for trial within which to file his change of venue petition. It provides the “ . . . application . . . shall be filed ... if the issues are closed without answer by operation of law, . . . not later than ten (10) days after the party has knowledge the cause is ready to be set for trial. ...” (Italics supplied.)
The record in the case before us discloses that no formal pleadings were filed in the will contest action below except for the contestors’ written allegations or complaint although it had been pending for a period of four months. We are compelled to come to the conclusion that there has been no affirmative showing by relators in this case that the issues in the instant will contest action were not closed by operation of law nor that relators did not have knowledge the cause was ready to be set for trial. Yet such showing must be made if relators’ action for writ of mandate in this Court is to prevail.
It is well settled that the burden of proof in actions of mandate is on the party having the affirmative of the issue and that this rule applies to original actions for mandate in this Court. State ex rel. Rooney et al. v. Lake C. C., etc. (1957), 236 Ind. 345, 346, 140 N. E. 2d 217, 218; State ex rel. Wall v. Cass C. C. etc. (1954), 233 Ind. 192, 194, 117 N. E. 2d 126, 127; West’s I. L. E., “Mandate and Prohibition,” §123.
The alternative writ of mandate heretofore issued is dissolved and the permanent writ denied.
Arterburn and Achor, JJ., concur. Myers, J., not participating. Jackson, J., dissents with opinion.

. Acts 1953, ch. 112, §717, p. 295.

. Acts 1953, ch. 112, §718, p. 295.

. Acts 1953, ch. 112, §719, p. 295.

. Acts 1953, ch. 112, §720, p. 295.

. Acts 1953, ch. 112, §721, p. 295.