Estate of Voelker, No. 1-679A161

Docket NºNo. 1-679A161
Citation182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398
Case DateNovember 01, 1979
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 398

396 N.E.2d 398
182 Ind.App. 650
The ESTATE OF Emil J. VOELKER, Deceased.
Wilhelm K. VOELKER, Administrator, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
The ESTATE OF Emil J. VOELKER, Deceased,
Blondell Tucker, Appellee (Claimant Below).
No. 1-679A161.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.
Nov. 1, 1979.

[182 Ind.App. 651] Donald F. Foley, Yaeger, Foley, McLin & Cutter, Indianapolis, for appellant.

W. Rudolph Steckler, Quill, Steckler & Boberschmidt, Indianapolis, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

Appellee Blondell Tucker (Tucker) filed three claims against the appellant, Estate of Emil J. Voelker (Voelker). Two of the claims seek specific performance of an alleged promise of Voelker to convey to Tucker, either by gift or devise, certain real and personal property. Voelker died intestate and Tucker is not related to, nor was married to, Voelker.

In preparing for trial Tucker sought discovery of, among other things, copies of any and all unsigned wills of Voelker which were in the possession of his attorney. The trial court ordered production of these papers with this interlocutory appeal resulting.

The essence of the issue presented is whether the papers sought to be discovered are protected by the attorney-client privilege. For the reasons set forth we are of the opinion that they are.

Privileged matters are exempt from discovery. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 26(B); Colman v. Heidenreich, (1978) Ind., 381 N.E.2d 866. The Colman case capsuled the attorney-client privilege as follows:

In sum, the rule is "that when an attorney is consulted on business within the scope of his profession, the communications [182 Ind.App. 652] on the subject between him and his client should be treated as strictly confidential." Jenkinson v. State, (1840) 5

Page 399

Blackf. 465, 466. See also Thomas v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 546, 242 N.E.2d 919; Fluty v. State, (1946) 224 Ind. 652, 71 N.E.2d 565. See generally C. McCormick, Evidence §§ 87-95 (2d ed. 1972); VIII J. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2290-2329 (McNaughton rev. 1961). As long as the communication is within this scope, it is of no moment to the privilege's application that there is no pendency or expectation of litigation. Bigler v. Reyher, (1873) 43 Ind. 112. * * * Rather, what is essential to the privilege is a "confidential relation of client and attorney." See Harless v. Petty, (1884) 98 Ind. 53, 57; Model Clothing House v. Hirsch, (1908) 42 Ind.App. 270, 85 N.E. 719. Within such a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort, Ind., No. 2-581A150
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 9, 1983
    ...attorney-client privilege applies, citing Kern v. Kern (1900) 154 Ind. 29, 55 N.E.2d 1004 and Estate of Voelker (1st Dist.1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 398. Upon examination of these cases, it is evident that they support the opposite The general rule excludes testimony of communications betwe......
  • Terre Haute Regional Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, No. 61A04-9107-CV-223
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 22, 1991
    ...by a stranger for use in litigation without that patient's knowledge, consent, or waiver. As in the case of Estate of Voelker (1979), 182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398, we hold that a stranger is in no position to cause a privilege to be We hold the discovery of medical records of nonparty p......
  • Brown v. Edwards, No. 27A02-9312-CV-689
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 19, 1994
    ...by the 1990 will. Warren's nieces and nephews were, therefore, strangers to that estate. See Voelker v. Estate of Voelker (1979), 182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398, 399 (stranger to the estate brought two claims which sought specific performance of an alleged promise to convey, either by gif......
  • Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., No. 53A05-9404-CV-132
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 3, 1995
    ...the free exchange of information, ideas, and counsel so that Best Beers could best prepare its case. See Estate of Voelker (1979), 182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398 (where legal advice of any kind is sought from an attorney, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort, Ind., No. 2-581A150
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 9, 1983
    ...attorney-client privilege applies, citing Kern v. Kern (1900) 154 Ind. 29, 55 N.E.2d 1004 and Estate of Voelker (1st Dist.1979) Ind.App., 396 N.E.2d 398. Upon examination of these cases, it is evident that they support the opposite The general rule excludes testimony of communications betwe......
  • Terre Haute Regional Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, No. 61A04-9107-CV-223
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 22, 1991
    ...by a stranger for use in litigation without that patient's knowledge, consent, or waiver. As in the case of Estate of Voelker (1979), 182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398, we hold that a stranger is in no position to cause a privilege to be We hold the discovery of medical records of nonparty p......
  • Brown v. Edwards, No. 27A02-9312-CV-689
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 19, 1994
    ...by the 1990 will. Warren's nieces and nephews were, therefore, strangers to that estate. See Voelker v. Estate of Voelker (1979), 182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398, 399 (stranger to the estate brought two claims which sought specific performance of an alleged promise to convey, either by gif......
  • Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., No. 53A05-9404-CV-132
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 3, 1995
    ...the free exchange of information, ideas, and counsel so that Best Beers could best prepare its case. See Estate of Voelker (1979), 182 Ind.App. 650, 396 N.E.2d 398 (where legal advice of any kind is sought from an attorney, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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