Maurice F. Jones Trust v. Barnett Banks Trust Co., N.A., 2A03-9307-CV-220

Decision Date27 June 1994
Docket NumberNo. 2A03-9307-CV-220,2A03-9307-CV-220
Citation637 N.E.2d 1301
PartiesIn the Matter of the MAURICE F. JONES TRUST, Fort Wayne National Bank, Trustee, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. BARNETT BANKS TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Louise LaFollette Jones; Barnett Banks Trust Company N.A., as Successor Trustee of the Louise LaFollette Jones Revocable Trust Agreement; James D. Briggs, Jr.; Geneva United Methodist Church; American Heart Association, Northeastern Indiana Chapter, Inc.; Allen County Cancer Society, Inc.; Inez Olson; Robert G. Jones; Marceile J. Hackley; Lucille Campbell; Geraldine H. Kubaszyk; Mary M. Mounch; Frances A. Thomas; and Lois Ralls Briggs, Appellees-Defendants.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Stephen J. Williams, Shambaugh, Kast, Beck & Williams, Robert J. Parrish, Parrish & Knight, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Vincent J. Backs, William J. Tutwiler, Beers, Mallers, Backs & Salin, Fort Wayne, for appellee Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff Fort Wayne National Bank (FWNB), as trustee of the Maurice F. Jones Trust, brought an action for a declaratory judgment requesting a declaration that it is not responsible for federal estate tax resulting from the inclusion of qualified terminal interest property (QTIP) within the Estate of Louise Jones. The trial court denied FWNB's request for declaratory judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A. (BBTC), as personal representative and trustee of the estate and trust of Louise Jones, on BBTC's counterclaim.

The facts relevant to the appeal disclose that Maurice and Louise were married in 1979. It was a second marriage for both, and no children were born of their marriage. Maurice had no children. Louise had one child, Kaye Edmonds, from her previous marriage. In 1979, Maurice created an intervivos trust naming Louise the lifetime beneficiary. FWNB was named trustee in 1981. Upon the death of Louise, the trust property was to be distributed to various family members of Maurice and to various charitable organizations. Maurice died on January 25, 1985, at the age of 81. Louise survived Maurice.

Following Maurice's death, the trust he created distributed income to Louise. A marital deduction for the QTIP property equal to approximately 41 per cent of the value of the assets of the Maurice F. Jones Trust was claimed on the federal estate tax return filed by FWNB, as personal representative, and was allowed in the determination of the federal estate tax liability of Maurice's estate.

In 1987, Louise executed a will and trust which revoked her earlier will. Louise died on February 19, 1991. She was a resident of Florida at the time of her death. Her estate was administered in Florida. During administration of the estate, BBTC notified FWNB that the incremental federal estate tax due as a result of the inclusion of the value of the assets of the Maurice F. Jones Trust in Louise's estate should be paid by FWNB pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 2207A (1981) of the Internal Revenue Code.

FWNB asserted that by direction in Louise's will, the taxes were owed by Louise's estate. FWNB brought this declaratory action. After a hearing on the parties' motions for summary judgment, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of BBTC. This appeal ensued.

As restated, FWNB contends that the trial court erroneously determined that the provision in Louise's will directing payment of taxes was ambiguous thereby necessitating construction, and the court erred in allowing admission of extrinsic evidence as to Louise's intent.

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this Court stands in the shoes of the trial court. This Court must liberally construe all designated evidentiary matter in favor of the non-moving party and resolve any doubt against the moving party. Even if it appears that the non-moving party will not succeed at trial, summary judgment is inappropriate where material facts conflict or undisputed facts lead to conflicting inferences. Brockmeyer v. Fort Wayne Public Transp. (1993), Ind.App., 614 N.E.2d 605, 606. Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Where no genuine issue of material fact exists, the construction of a will is subject to summary judgment.

See Est. of Ensminger v. Ind. Nat. Bank (1969), 144 Ind.App. 338, 345, 246 N.E.2d 217, 222;

Funk v. Funk (1990), Ind.App., 563 N.E.2d 127, 131 (under appropriate circumstances construction of will, necessarily including determination of testator's intent, may be disposed of through summary judgment).

In the present case, the material facts are not at issue. At issue is the application of the law to those facts. The parties agree that the Internal Revenue Code allows recovery of the incremental federal estate tax liability incurred by the estate which is attributable to QTIP property included in the estate pursuant to the provisions for marital deductions, if the decedent has not otherwise directed by will the payment of the taxes. The recovery is from the recipients of the property. In this case, Louise's estate could recover the estate taxes attributable to the QTIP property received from Maurice, inasmuch as a marital deduction was taken at the time the property was transferred to Louise during her lifetime. In relevant part the code provision states:

"(a) Recovery with respect to estate tax.--

(1) In general.--If any part of the gross estate consists of property the value of which is includible in the gross estate by reason of section 2044 (relating to certain

property for which marital deduction was previously allowed), the decedent's estate shall be entitled to recover from the person receiving the property the amount by which--

(A) the total tax under this chapter which has been paid, exceeds

(B) the total tax under this chapter which would have been payable if the value of such property had not been included in the gross estate.

(2) Decedent may otherwise direct by will.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the decedent otherwise directs by will."

26 U.S.C.A. § 2207A. FWNB contends that Louise otherwise directed the payment of taxes in her will; thus, her estate may not recover the amount of estate tax attributable to the QTIP property.

In pertinent part, Louise's will provided:

"ARTICLE II--PAYMENT DEBTS, TAXES AND COST OF ADMINISTRATION

I direct that all estate, inheritance, succession and other death taxes of any nature, together with any interest and penalties thereon, which may be levied or assessed by reason of my death, by the laws of any State or the United States, with respect to property passing under this Will or any other property, shall be considered a cost of administration of my estate, and that such taxes, together with all debts which I am legally obligated to pay at the time of my death, my last illness and funeral expenses and costs of administration of my estate, (including the cost of a suitable monument at my grave), shall be paid out of my residuary estate without apportionment...."

BBTC argues that the direction contained in Louise's will is qualified by the phrase "which I am legally obligated to pay." Accordingly, BBTC contends that Louise did not "otherwise direct" the payment of the taxes attributable to the QTIP property because she was not legally obligated to pay those taxes. As further evidence that Louise did not intend to waive recovery of the estate tax from Maurice's trust, BBTC notes other portions of the will which allow the personal representative to carry out Louise's intentions, including her express intent within her Trust Agreement that provisions were not made for others for whom she had affection because she wished "to extend to her daughter, KAYE LOUISE EDMONDS, the maximum financial security that she possibly can." At the very least, according to BBTC, the will is ambiguous and subject to construction through admission of extrinsic evidence.

BBTC urges that Florida law, as applied by the trial court, controls the issues of ambiguity and admission of extrinsic evidence. Because Louise was a resident of Florida, Louise was in Florida at the time of her death, the instruments to be construed were drafted in Florida by a Florida attorney, the instruments were executed in Florida, and Louise's estate was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Birch v. Kim
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • September 9, 1997
    ... ... at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513; Spraying Sys. Co. v. Delavan Inc., 975 F.2d 387, 392 (7th ... ...
  • Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 30, 2012
    ... ... Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting ... , the Seventh Circuit has held that a trust beneficiary is collaterally estopped by a ... See Maurice F. Jones Trust v. Barnett Banks Trust Co., 637 ... ...
  • Creighton University v. Kleinfeld, CIV-S 94-1594 GEB/PAN.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • December 13, 1995
    ... ... Supp. 1422 ("QTIP") trust from paying the federal taxes attributable to ... IBEW, Local 47 v. Southern California Edison Co., 880 F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir.1989); United ... In Matter of the Maurice F. Jones Trust v. Barnett Banks Trust Co., N.A., ... ...
  • Ramstetter v. Hostetler (In re Estate of Ramstetter)
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • May 19, 2016
    ... ... of the Ranch, by deeding her interest to a trust that she had created. 6 Marie and Karol ... See Roque v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2012 COA 10, 7, 318 P.3d 1 ("We can affirm ... procedural considerations [.]"), with Maurice F. Jones Tr. v. Barnett Banks Tr. Co., 637 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Who Should Bear the Bite of Estate Taxes on Non-probate Property
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 43, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...it as formulaic and inconsistent with applicable case law governing shifting the burden of taxation. Cooney, 541 N.W.2d at 473. 161. 637 N.E.2d 1301 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). Florida law applied as the wife was a Florida resident, died in Florida, and her will was executed in Florida. In re Mau......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT