Helm v. Odle, 19100
| Decision Date | 22 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 19100,19100,1 |
| Parties | Elizabeth HELM, Appellant, v. Celestis ODLE, as administratrix of the Estate of Richard W. Yaldon, Deceased, Appellee |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Dennis & Cross, Muncie, for appellant.
Leonidas A. Guthrie, Walter G. Tanner, Muncie, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court of a probate matter. The appellant herein filed a petition with the trial court seeking to remove an administratrix under § 7-406, Burns', 1953 Replacement
The trial court refused to remove said administratrix and overruled the appellant's motion for a new trial. The overruling of the motion for a new trial is the assigned error herein.
The two causes set forth in said motion, omitting the formal parts, are, as follows:
'(1) The decision of the court is contrary to law;
'(2) The petitioner has, since the trial of this cause, discovered new, competent evidence material to her action which was unknown to her at the time of the trial, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, which can now be produced, if a new trial of this cause is had, as more particularly set forth as follows: * * *.
then follows several lengthy affidavits, et cetera, which we do not believe necessary to set forth.
The law is well settled that a court of probate jurisdiction has great latitude and wide discretion in matters concerning the appointments and the removal of administrators and administratrices, and this court will not attempt to control or interfere with the Probate Court's action therein, except in a case where it is clear that its discretion has been abused. State ex rel. Ripa v. Lake Superior Court, 1942, 220 Ind. 436, 43 N.E.2d 871, and authorities cited. See also, Haughey v. Haughey, 1920, 73 Ind.App. 318, 127 N.E. 454, and authorities cited. In discussing Probate Courts' discretion, this court stated in the case of Haughey v. Haughey, supra, 73 Ind.App. at page 320, 127 N.E. at page 455:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Floyd
...the respondent as co-trustee. The Indiana Appellate Court reversed the probate court for failure to remove a trustee. Helm v. Odle, 129 Ind.App. 478, 157 N.E.2d 584 (1959). The appellate court a serious failure by the appellee administratrix to handle and conduct the trust reposed in her wi......
-
Hauck v. Second Nat. Bank of Richmond
...Court's action therein, except in a case where it is clear that its discretion has been abused.' (Emphasis supplied.) Helm v. Odle, (1959) 129 Ind.App. 478, 157 N.E.2d 584. Also In Re Estate of Saltzman, supra. The burden of proof is on the party seeking to have the personal representative ......
-
Baird's Estate, Matter of
...established by the testator in the will. Butler University v. Danner, (1943) 114 Ind.App. 236, 51 N.E.2d 487.5 In Helm v. Odle, (1959) 129 Ind.App. 478, 157 N.E.2d 584, this court found an administrator's breach of trust was an example of unsuitability but did not make a definitive determin......
-
Kidd's Estate, In re
...In this connection, the discretion residing in a court of probate jurisdiction has been held to be 'wide discretion.' Helm v. Odle, 129 Ind.App. 478, 157 N.E.2d 584 (1959); In re Koretzky's Estate, 19 N.J. 352, 117 A.2d 1 (1955); Stone v. Baldwin, 347 Ill.App. 128, 106 N.E.2d 379 (1952), re......