Bonge v. Risinger
| Decision Date | 24 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 48A04-8703-CV-87,48A04-8703-CV-87 |
| Citation | 511 N.E.2d 1082 |
| Parties | Jack Lee BONGE, Executor of the Estate of Hortense Bonge Hull, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. Bettie Jo RISINGER, Guardian of Raouel Basil Hull, Appellee (Respondent Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert L. Austin, Busby, Austin, Cooper & Farr, Anderson, for appellant.
Billie W.C. Schuyler, John E. Eisele, Schuyler, Eisele & Lockwood, Anderson, for appellee.
Jack Lee Bonge (Bonge) as executor of the estate of Hortense Bonge Hull (Hull estate) appeals the Madison Circuit Court's judgment that Bettie Jo Risinger (Risinger), guardian of decedent's husband Raouel Basil Hull (Raouel), had timely filed an election against decedent's will although no prior court approval had been obtained to make such election.
We affirm.
This appeal presents a single issue, namely, whether the guardian of an incompetent surviving spouse must first obtain court authorization before filing on behalf of the incompetent an election to take against the will of a deceased spouse.
At the time Hortense and Raouel were married, they each had children of their own. No children were born of their marriage. Hortense died on September 9, 1985, her will was admitted to probate 9 days later on September 18, 1985. Although Hortense's will was executed while she and Raouel were married, it contained no provisions regarding Raouel. Notice of the opening of Hull's estate was duly published.
On January 15, 1986, Risinger, Raouel's daughter, was appointed his guardian. The next day she filed Raouel's election to take against Hortense's will with the probate court without having obtained a court order authorizing its filing on his behalf. After the time for filing of such elections had run, Raouel's guardian obtained a court order which retroactively authorized the prior filing.
Hull's estate then filed a motion for summary judgment which claimed Raouel's election was invalid. It was overruled. Hull's estate later filed an intermediate accounting which disregarded Raouel's election to take against the will. The trial court entered a judgment modifying the proposed distribution to include distribution to Raouel, finding Risinger had timely and effectively exercised Raouel's right of election to take against Hortense's will.
Hull's estate appeals.
Three provisions of the probate code are of interest in this appeal. 1 Hull's estate contends guardian Risinger's filing of Raouel's election to take against Hortense's will was invalid because the statute requires court approval before the guardian may do so. The estate further argues the court's subsequent authorization to file such election was ineffectual because it was obtained after the time for filing such election had run. We disagree.
Burns' Statutes Sec. 6-2335 (1933) provided in such cases guardians of incompetent surviving spouses had the duty to file a petition "praying for the advice of the court" and obtain a court determination as to whether the guardian should file an election to take under the will or renounce the same and take under the laws of descent. This statute required the circuit court to hear evidence, determine which course was in the best interests of the incompetent, and enter judgment accordingly.
The legislature's enactment of IC 29-1-3-4 in 1953 substantially changed the former provisions in this regard. It provides "the court may order the guardian of his estate to elect for him," but contains no provision for court approval as a condition precedent to the filing of such an election by the guardian as was the case in the prior statute.
Recently we said
It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that "when the legislature enacts a statutory amendment to a prior statute, a presumption arises that the legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Whyte
...does not say as it is to recognize what it does say. Irmscher v. McCue, 504 N.E.2d 1034, 1037 (Ind.App.1987); Bonge v. Risinger, 511 N.E.2d 1082, 1084 (Ind.App.1987), reh. denied, transfer denied; Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. Imler, 505 N.E.2d 459, 463 (Ind. App.1987) reh. denied, transf......
-
Bailey v. Menzie
...is imperative in the context of statutory construction to acknowledge what a statute addresses and what it does not, Bonge v. Risinger (1987), Ind.App., 511 N.E.2d 1082, a recognition of what this court has and has not held is indispensable to an understanding of this decision. All that thi......
-
Fort Wayne Educ. Ass'n, Inc. v. Aldrich, 02A03-8609-CV-255
...a statute, recognizing what the statute does not say is just as important as recognizing what it does say. Bonge v. Risinger (1987), Ind.App., 511 N.E.2d 1082, 1084, reh. denied, trans. denied. While the intent of the legislature is controlling, United Rural, supra, at 1138, "[t]he best evi......
-
Foman v. Moss
...remove this requirement. Burns Annotated § 6-304 (1953) (repealed) (as added by Acts 1953, ch. 112, § 304, p. 295). In Bonge v. Risinger, 511 N.E.2d 1082 (Ind.Ct.App.1987), reh'g denied, trans. denied, this court held that a guardian was not required to consult the court before electing to ......