Pendell's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 20 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 20756,No. 1,20756,1 |
| Citation | 236 N.E.2d 842,142 Ind.App. 673 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE of Percy PENDELL. Bernice M. PENDELL, Personal Representative, Appellant, v. Flossie WOLFINGER, Appellee |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Gerald G. Fuchs and Raymond P. Knoll, Evansville, for appellant.
Donald G. Hendrickson, Boonville, for appellee.
This appeal comes to us from the Probate Court of Vanderburgh County, where, in an action on a claim against the estate of Percy Pendell, the appellee recovered a judgment for $5,625.00. The appellee's claim was based on services rendered by her to the decedent for board, room and home care for a period of approximately ten years from May, 1953, to October, 1963. After the issues were closed, trial was had to the Court which found for the appellee herein and rendered judgment in the foregoing amount.
The appellant's motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the trial court, contained several specifications of error. The argument portion of the appellant's brief urges the following specifications of error:
'(2) The judgment of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
'(3) The judgment of the court is contrary to law.'
The appellant contends, in substance, that there was no evidence to establish the value of the specific services performed, or of room or housing provided, or of services allegedly performed by the plaintiff-appellee to the deceased during the years 1953 to 1963. That the judgment of the trial court therefore, could only have been founded upon conjecture and surmise, and that the damages or recovery assessed were excessive.
We cannot agree with the foregoing contentions of the appellant. It is true that if there is no evidence in the record before us to support the decision of the trial court, or if there is no evidence from which proper inferences might have been drawn by the trial court to support its decision, then such decision is contrary to law. However, such is not the situation in this instance. We have carefully reviewed the evidence contained in the record, which we do not deem necessary to set forth herein, and we did find some conflict.
There is evidence in the record that the appellee rendered services to the decedent for approximately 3,784 days, and also evidence that such services were reasonably worth a sum of $4.00 per day, or over a total of $15,000. There was evidence that the value of a sleeping room was $10.00 per week and that the appellee furnished such a room to the decedent for approximately 542 weeks, or a value of over $5,420.00. There is also evidence in the record on which the trial court could have based the inference that the appellee expected to be paid for the foregoing services and that the decedent expected to pay for the services so rendered. We are mindful that the rule in determining whether a verdict or decision is sustained by sufficient evidence, that circumstantial evidence and inferences may be considered. Estes v. State of Indiana (1964), 244 Ind. 691, 195 N.E.2d 471. Our Supreme Court has stated, in substance, that contradicted evidence will sometimes support conflicting inferences, in which case the inferences drawn therefrom by the trier of facts, which in this case was the trial court, will prevail. See A.S.C. Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank of Elwood et al. (1960), 241 Ind. 19, 167 N.E.2d 460.
Where, as in this cause, there is evidence of probative value from which the trial court could have found or from which the court may have properly inferred that the appellee rendered services to the decedent for board, room and home care for a period of ten years, including several months when the decedent was ill, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal, as the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial