Bronnenberg v. Estate of Bronnenberg

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: GARRARD; BAKER, J. and ROBB
• Citation: Bronnenberg v. Estate of Bronnenberg, 709 N.E.2d 330 (Ind. App. 1999)
• Decision Date: 07 April 1999
• Docket Number: No. 18A05-9706-CV-223,18A05-9706-CV-223
• Parties: Claude Thomas BRONNENBERG, Appellant, v. In re the ESTATE OF Claude BRONNENBERG, Appellee.

Page 330

709 N.E.2d 330

Claude Thomas BRONNENBERG, Appellant, v. In re the ESTATE OF Claude BRONNENBERG, Appellee.

No. 18A05-9706-CV-223.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 7, 1999.

Gary L. Griffiths, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.

Robert O. Beymer, Muncie, Indiana, Attorney for Appellee.

OPINION

GARRARD, Judge

Case Summary

Claude Thomas Bronnenberg ("Thomas") appeals the denial of his petition to reopen the estate of his father, Claude Bronnenberg ("Claude"). We affirm.

Issues

Thomas presents four issues which we restate as follows:

I. Whether Thomas received sufficient notice that the estate claimed ownership of real property in which he held an interest;

II. Whether the trial court erred in determining that Thomas had waived his right to reopen the estate;

III. Whether property incorrectly listed on an inventory voids a sale of the property; and,

IV. Whether Thomas forfeited a right in the sale of the real estate at issue.

The estate's former counsel requests attorney fees.

Facts and Procedural History

A detailed recitation of the facts is necessary for a proper resolution of this case. According to a deed dated January 2, 1975, Russell and Cleo Flesher conveyed and warranted to Thomas and his then-wife, Jewel, an eighty acre tract of land for ten dollars. A separate deed dated the same day states that Thomas and Jewel conveyed and warranted the eighty acres to Claude for one dollar. ¹ In June of 1981, Thomas and Claude entered into a "Real Estate Contract" whereby Claude agreed to sell the eighty acre tract of land to Thomas for $92,000.00 to be paid by January 1, 1982. Thomas lived on and farmed the eighty acres.

Claude died on September 15, 1992. The court approved the appointment of Larry Bronnenberg and Patricia Bronnenberg, siblings of Thomas and children of Claude, as co-personal representatives of the estate. Both an original and an amended inventory were filed and listed the estate's personal and real property. The inventories included the eighty acre tract of land with a $52,000.00 asset value.

Thomas owed $210,000.00 on a promissory note to the estate of his deceased parents. ² Although the personal representatives initially filed suit upon the note, they later petitioned the court to settle the matter by permitting them to enter into an agreement. In the August 25, 1994 order granting the petition, the court stated:

2. That [Thomas] has been in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, has had severe financial problems and may not be able to pay said [$210,000.00] note even if the co-personal representatives were successful in their suit.

3. That the parties have entered into an agreement whereby the promissory note due from [Thomas] would be discharged and being fully paid and satisfied and the suit against him be dismissed with prejudice.

4. That [Thomas] in exchange for such dismissal and release would execute and deliver to the co-personal representatives his renunciation of his right to inherit under the [estate].

5. That the Court believes that said settlement is full, fair adequate and in the best interest of the estate and the heirs-at-law of said decedent and the same should be approved.

6. That all persons interested in said estate have signed written consents to such settlement and no notice is necessary to said persons.

Record at 89-90. Accordingly, on October 3, 1994, the personal representatives and Thomas executed an agreement which provided, inter alia:

4. That after the execution and delivery of [Thomas' renunciations of any right, title or interest in the estates of his parents], [Thomas] shall have no further rights, title or interest in and to the [estates of his parents]. Nothing in this agreement shall effect in any way any other claim, contract agreement or liability existing between [Thomas] and the respective [estates of his parents]. As it is the intention of this settlement and agreement to release [Thomas] from any claim under his promissory note in the sum of Two Hundred Ten Thousand ($210,000.00) Dollars plus interest and cost and the relinquishment of his right to receive or take any property under the [estates of his parents].

5. That this agreement has no effect and does not in any way change the status, rights or liabilities of any of the parties hereto as to a certain contract for the purchase of real estate existing between [Thomas], as purchaser, and the Estate of Claude Bronnenberg, as seller and that said contract shall remain in full force and effect.

6. That from and after the execution and delivery of the relinquishment as herein note, [Thomas] shall not have any further right to notice of the pendency or the proceedings taking place in either of the respective estates.

7. That the Personal Representatives may proceed with the settlement of the respective estates the same as if [Thomas] was not an interested party nor heir or legatee under either of the said estates.

Record at E, F (emphases added). Also on October 3, 1994, in accordance with the above agreement, Thomas filed a "Disclaimer of Intestate Share of the Decedent's Estate." Record at 92.

In a January 1995 petition requesting authority to sell the eighty acre tract of real estate, the personal representatives explained:

3. That on the 25th day of June, 1981, the said Claude Bronnenberg sold said real estate on a written conditional sales contract to [Thomas]....

4. That said co-personal representatives are uncertain as to the amount of money due upon said contract, however the purchaser [Thomas] has repeatedly alleged the unpaid balance to be Fifty-two Thousand ($52,000.00) Dollars.

5. That [Thomas] is of questionable financial abilities and has filed bankruptcy not less than three (3) times within the last two (2) years and now has a bankruptcy pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis division under Cause No. 94-09251-RLB-13. That said co-personal representatives do not believe that there is any likelihood that [Thomas] can discharge the indebtedness upon said contract and that if the matter remains in the bankruptcy proceedings that it could take more than five (5) years for them to receive the payment which would unduly extend the period necessary for the administration of this estate.

6. That said co-personal representatives desire to sell said real estate subject to the contract as hereinabove identified at and for the sum of Twenty-six Thousand ($26,000.00) Dollars subject only to the contract as above described and current taxes and the taxes for the year 1994 due and payable in 1995 to be assumed by the purchaser.

7. That the interest of [Thomas] has been relinquished by the prior determination of this Court and no further notice to [Thomas] concerning matters of this estate is required.

* * *

10. That said co-personal representatives believe that the sale of said real estate would be in the best interest of the heirs, devisees and legatees[.]

Record at 127-28 (emphases added). The court granted the petition, and the property was sold to Janet Herbert who received a personal representative's deed. In June of 1995, the final account and other petitions were filed to conclude the estate.

In February of 1997, Thomas filed a petition to reopen the estate. In an order denying the petition, the court made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Discussion and Decision

Our supreme court has set out the standard of review when a trial court makes findings and conclusions on its own motion:

Sua sponte findings control only as to the issues they cover and a general judgment will control as to the issues upon which there are no findings. A general judgment entered with findings will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence. When a court has made special findings of fact, an appellate court reviews sufficiency of the evidence using a two-step process. First, it must determine whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact; second, it must determine whether those findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions of law. Findings will only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. In order to determine that a finding or conclusion is clearly erroneous, an appellate court's review of the evidence must leave it with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259, 1262 (Ind.1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted); cf. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 695 N.E.2d 920, 923-24 (Ind.1998) (holding that where a trial court has made special findings pursuant to a party's request under Trial Rule 52(A), the reviewing court may affirm the judgment on any legal theory supported by the findings).

I. Notice

Thomas asserts that the trial court erred in determining that a copy of letters of administration to a potential heir was sufficient notice that the estate claimed ownership of real property in which the potential heir held an interest. Preliminarily, we point out that the trial court's finding and conclusion on this matter were not quite what Thomas claims them to have been. Rather, the trial court found that the "estate was opened September 17, 1992 and Letters of Administration were issued to the co-personal representatives and [Thomas] was listed as an heir of the decedent and given notice accordingly." Record at 194. The trial court concluded that until Thomas filed his disclaimer, he "had every opportunity, as an heir in receiving notice of the matters in this estate, to have determined that the estate claimed the ownership of the eighty (80) acres. He took no action...." Record at 198. The court further concluded that Thomas was a party and received notices, "and in the exercise of...