In re Paternity of Duran

Decision Date30 January 2009
Docket NumberNo. 64A03-0702-JV-66.,64A03-0702-JV-66.
Citation900 N.E.2d 454
PartiesIn re the PATERNITY OF Maria E. DURAN. Baltasar Regalado, Appellant-Intervenor, v. Maria E. Duran, Appellee-Petitioner, and First National Bank of Valparaiso, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Regalado, Deceased, Appellee-Respondent. In re the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Regalado, Deceased. Maria E. Duran, Appellant, v. Baltasar Regalado and First National Bank of Valparaiso, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Regalado, Deceased, Appellees.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
900 N.E.2d 454
In re the PATERNITY OF Maria E. DURAN.
Baltasar Regalado, Appellant-Intervenor,
v.
Maria E. Duran, Appellee-Petitioner, and
First National Bank of Valparaiso, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Regalado, Deceased, Appellee-Respondent.
In re the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Regalado, Deceased.
Maria E. Duran, Appellant,
v.
Baltasar Regalado and First National Bank of Valparaiso, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph

[900 N.E.2d 455]

Regalado, Deceased, Appellees.1
No. 64A03-0702-JV-66.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
January 30, 2009.

[900 N.E.2d 456]

Stephanie Shappell Katich, Nick Katich, Katich & Shappell Legal Team, LLP, Crown Point, IN, Attorneys for Baltasar Regalado.

Shawn P. Ryan, South Bend, IN, for Maria E. Duran.

Hugo E. Martz, Martz & Boyles, Valparaiso, IN, for First National Bank of Valparaiso.

OPINION

KIRSCH, Judge.


This case represents the consolidation of two causes of action pertaining to Joseph Regalado ("Joseph"). The first, a paternity action,2 is an appeal by Joseph's father, Baltasar Regalado ("Baltasar"), of the trial court's order that he could not intervene in the paternity action, which resulted in the determination that Joseph is the biological father of Maria E. Duran ("Duran"). The second, an estate action,3 is Duran's interlocutory appeal of the trial court's determination

900 N.E.2d 457

that, pursuant to Indiana Code section 29-1-2-8, she is not entitled to inherit by means of intestate succession from Joseph's estate. On its own motion, this court consolidated these two cases into the paternity action. On appeal, Duran raises a number of estate issues, which we consolidate and restate as follows:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Indiana law applies to the administration of Joseph's estate.

II. Whether the trial court erred in determining that Duran is not Joseph's heir under the laws of intestacy.

Baltasar also raises a number of issues of which we find the following restated issue to be dispositive:

III. Whether the trial court erred in denying Baltasar's motion to intervene in the paternity case.4

We affirm the decisions of the two trial courts.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 15, 1985, Duran was born to Maria I. Duran ("Maria") out of wedlock. Two years later, Maria passed away. When Duran was almost three years old, her maternal grandparents, Teodoro and Rachel Duran, filed a petition in Cook County, Illinois to adopt Duran. Joseph, who at that time lived in Illinois, received personal notice of the adoption proceedings that named him as the putative father. When Joseph failed to file an appearance or an answer in the adoption proceedings, the trial court issued a Default Order terminating his parental rights.

Thereafter, on December 11, 1987, the Cook Circuit Court entered a Judgment Order for Adoption of Duran. The Order noted that Joseph's consent to the adoption was not necessary because Joseph, as the putative father, was of lawful age, under no legal disability, had abandoned Duran more than three months prior to the petition for adoption, and had failed to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to Duran's welfare. The Order further provided:

[Duran], a minor, shall be to all legal intents and purposes, the child of the Petitioners, TEODORO A. DURAN and RACHEL DURAN, husband and wife, and for the purposes of inheritance and all other legal incidents and consequences, shall be the same as if she had been born to the Petitioners in lawful wedlock.

Duran's Estate App. at 316.5 The Illinois Office of the Cook County Clerk issued Duran a new birth certificate, which named Teodoro and Rachel Duran as her legal father and mother.

In 1991, Joseph suffered serious and permanent brain damage as the result of an altercation with officers of the Chicago Police Department. Thereafter, Joseph was adjudicated a disabled person, and an

900 N.E.2d 458

Illinois guardianship estate was opened in Cook County, Illinois for his care. An Indiana guardianship was also later established. Joseph's father, Baltasar, served as the guardian of Joseph's person in both Indiana and Illinois.

Baltasar, on Joseph's behalf, brought a federal lawsuit against the City of Chicago for the actions of its police officers. In December 2000, Joseph settled his claim for fifteen million dollars. At some point in 2004, Baltasar and Joseph moved to Porter County, Indiana, where, by Duran's own admission, Joseph was "domiciled" when he died on October 23, 2004. Duran Estate App. at 62. At the time of his death, Joseph owned no real property, but had eight to nine million dollars of personal property, which was located in Indiana.

As a young child, Duran believed that her biological father was dead. In 2000, Duran learned that Joseph, her putative father, was still alive, and she and her maternal aunt set up a meeting with Joseph's family. The meeting initially took place at a Denny's restaurant in Illinois. From that location, Joseph's mother invited Duran to the Hickory Hills, Illinois home where Joseph and his parents lived.

In October 2003, Duran filed, in Illinois, a petition to establish paternity in, and a petition for DNA testing of, Joseph as her putative father. Baltasar, in the capacity as Joseph's father and guardian, filed a motion to dismiss the petition. That motion was denied, and on May 12, 2004, a judge for the Cook County Circuit Court entered a Memorandum Opinion Order setting forth the reasoning as follows:

[Duran's] argument propounds her right to establish relationship [sic] with [Joseph], assuming an adjudication of parentage, prior to his or her death, which might be allowed in that event. Under the [Illinois] Parentage Act, [Duran] claims a right to more than a material inheritance, but also the right to enjoy the parent/child relationship.

Accordingly, absent any additional facts or statutory preclusions, this Court finds that since the action is timely and not barred by the statute of limitations, the adult-child may seek to establish paternity. This Court did not find any case law indicating her adoption under these facts would bar her from doing so, and for the foregoing reasons, she should be given the opportunity to establish and enjoy the parent/child relationship.

Duran's Paternity App. at 153.

Joseph died in Porter County on October 23, 2004. The next day, the Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed the paternity action after finding it no longer had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. A few days later, the parties commenced estate and paternity proceedings in Porter County, Indiana. While Porter County was the venue for all future proceedings, the paternity and estate issues were divided between two courts. The paternity issue was filed with the Juvenile Division of the Porter Circuit Court and heard by Magistrate Edward Nemeth and Judge Mary Harper. The estate issue, by contrast, was filed with the Porter Superior Court and heard by Magistrate Katherine Forbes and Judge William Alexa.

The Indiana paternity action commenced on October 26, 2004, when Duran, then nineteen years of age, filed a petition to conduct DNA tests and a second petition to establish parent and child relationship with Joseph. In May 2005, Baltasar filed a motion to dismiss the paternity petition on the basis that the action was not timely filed since service of process—the final step in filing an action—had not been made on the personal representative within the required five months after Joseph's death.

900 N.E.2d 459

The First National Bank of Valparaiso (the "Bank"), which was named personal representative of Joseph's estate after May 2005, received a summons on the paternity action in August 2005. On September 28, 2005, the Bank filed a response to the paternity petition in which it stated that its only duty was to collect assets and to make distributions in accordance with applicable law. As such, the Bank stated that it took no position on the issue of the paternity petition.

On September 28, 2005, Baltasar filed a motion to intervene in the paternity action, asserting that the determination that Joseph was Duran's biological father could affect his status as an heir to Joseph's multi-million-dollar estate. On November 16, 2005, the trial court entered an order denying both Baltasar's motion to intervene and his motion to dismiss the paternity action. In an additional order, dated April 21, 2006, the trial court reasoned that Baltasar's interest in the paternity action was "indirect and derivative" and there were not sufficient grounds for intervention. The trial court also determined that Baltasar did not have standing to challenge the paternity action. Id. at 12.

Duran tried the paternity action before the Porter Circuit Court on September 7, 2006, without any opposition or evidence from either the Bank, which claimed it was a disinterested party, or from Baltasar, because the trial court had denied his motion to intervene. In an order dated January 10, 2007, the trial court granted Duran's paternity petition and declared, "Joseph ... is the biological father of the minor child Maria E. Duran born on January 15, 1985." Baltasar's Paternity App. at 22. Baltasar now appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to intervene in the paternity action.

Turning now to the estate action, which had been proceeding concurrently with the paternity action, on October 26, 2004, Duran filed a petition with the Porter Superior Court requesting that she be appointed personal representative of Joseph's "intestate-supervised" estate. Duran's Estate App. at 62. That same day, Baltasar also filed a petition to be appointed administrator of the estate. On October 27, 2004, the trial court denied both petitions, citing to existing conflicts between Duran and Baltasar. Instead, the trial court provided the names of three proposed personal representatives...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • REGALADO v. EState of Joseph J. REGALADO
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 27 Agosto 2010
    ...from Joseph's estate because her adoption by her maternal grandparents severed her relationship with Joseph. In re Paternity of Duran, 900 N.E.2d 454, 466 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), reh'g denied. 4The petition additionally listed Duran as Joseph's alleged daughter but asserted that her adoption by ......
  • Steingart v. Musgrave
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 31 Octubre 2023
    ... ... 14(A)(1). "We generally review interlocutory orders ... under an abuse of discretion standard." In re ... Paternity of Duran , 900 N.E.2d 454, 462 (Ind.Ct.App ... 2009). We review the court's order under this standard ... for the additional reason that ... ...
  • Hilliard v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 16 Noviembre 2009
    ... ... denied. Jacobs claims that we should apply an abuse of discretion standard because this is an interlocutory appeal. See In re Paternity of Duran, 900 N.E.2d 454, 462 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (noting general rule that we review interlocutory orders for an abuse of discretion). Although ... ...
  • Gunstra v. Bank
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 22 Julio 2010
    ...orders are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hilliard v. Jacobs, 916 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing In re Paternity of Duran, 900 N.E.2d 454, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)), trans. denied. When the issue on appeal is a pure question of law, however, the matter is reviewed de novo. Id......
  • 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