Tilly v. Hall (In re Hall)
| Citation | 149 N.E.3d 628 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-ES-1450 |
| Parties | IN RE the Supervised ESTATE OF Dorothy M. HALL (Decedent), Doloris Tilly, Appellant, v. Jeff Hall and Doris Andres, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Attorneys for Appellant: Matthew J. McGovern, Anderson, Indiana, Kristi L. Fox, Richard R. Fox, New Albany, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Jeff Hall: Crystal G. Rowe, Katherine E. Tapp, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, New Albany, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee Doris Andres: Rachele L. Cummins, Jeffersonville, Indiana
[1] Doloris Tilly appeals the trial court's interlocutory order of April 26, 2019, in the Supervised Estate of Dorothy M. Hall. We affirm.
[2] In 1987, Frank Hall ("Frank") and Dorothy Hall ("Dorothy") owned certain real property on Old Vincennes Road in Floyds Knobs, Indiana.1 Jeff Hall ("Hall") was Frank's son and Dorothy's stepson. Frank passed away in May 1987, and Dorothy became the sole owner of the Old Vincennes Road property and lived there. According to Hall, he and his father Frank raised cattle on the property and, after his father passed away, he continued to raise cattle and maintained the property and barn. Dorothy had two daughters, Doris Andres and Tilly.
[3] On September 3, 2008, Dorothy executed a Last Will and Testament leaving the approximately eight-acre property on Old Vincennes Road to Hall and leaving the residue of her estate to Tilly. The will stated that Andres had received certain money from a joint inter vivos account and thus no provision was made for her. It named Tilly's husband, Thomas Tilly ("Thomas"), as the executor of the estate and Hall as an alternate executor. Dorothy also signed a power of attorney appointing Tilly and Thomas as her attorneys in fact.
[4] On March 5, 2010, Dorothy signed a quitclaim deed conveying the Old Vincennes Road property to Tilly.2 Dorothy passed away on October 25, 2014. On November 3, 2014, Andres filed a petition for supervised administration requesting that she be appointed as the personal representative of the estate.
[5] Hall received a letter dated November 4, 2014, from Tilly and Thomas's counsel addressed to him and Andres stating: Dorothy had transferred her real estate to Tilly on March 5, 2010, pursuant to enclosed deeds; Dorothy's other assets were held jointly with Tilly and passed directly to her as a matter of law; pursuant to Dorothy's September 3, 2008 will, all of her tangible property passed to Tilly; and thus it was not necessary to open a probate estate for Dorothy unless additional assets were discovered.
[6] On November 7, 2014, Tilly filed an objection stating that she lived with Dorothy for several years before her death and was familiar with Dorothy's assets and that Dorothy had executed a will naming Thomas as the personal representative of her estate. On November 24, 2014, counsel for Hall filed an appearance. On December 2, 2014, the court issued an order appointing Thomas as the personal representative of Dorothy's estate.
[7] On December 10, 2014, Andres filed a "Verified Petition to Contest Will" requesting that the purported will be declared invalid and alleging that Dorothy was of unsound mind and she was under the undue influence of Tilly and Thomas. The petition stated Hall and Tilly were joined in the action because they were beneficially interested in the purported will as devisees. On December 17, 2014, Andres filed a Verified Petition to Set Aside Deeds which alleged: Dorothy previously owned the Old Vincennes Road parcel and a rental home on Ekin Avenue; Dorothy executed quitclaim deeds on March 5, 2010, conveying both parcels to Tilly; and Dorothy was of unsound mind, suffering from dementia, and under undue influence and duress at the time of the execution of the deeds. She requested the deeds be declared invalid and the real estate be deemed part of the estate.
[8] On January 2, 2015, Thomas filed a motion to resign as personal representative and to appoint a special administrator which stated Tilly, Andres, and Hall were all interested parties and that they should equally share the fees of the special administrator. The motion stated Tilly and Thomas resided in the residence at the Old Vincennes Road property and requested an order that they could continue to live there rent free.
[9] On January 9, 2015, the court entered an Agreed Order Appointing Special Administrator. The Agreed Order defined Tilly, Andres, and Hall as "Interested Parties," appointed a special administrator, and ordered that the Interested Parties share equally in the fees of the special administrator and that Tilly and Thomas could continue to reside rent free in the residence and would pay all expenses for maintenance, insurance, utilities, and taxes while residing there. The Agreed Order was signed by counsel for Tilly, Andres, and Hall.
[10] An entry in the chronological case summary dated November 6, 2015, states that a conference was held at which counsel for Andres, Tilly, and Hall were present and that Tilly was authorized to replace the HVAC system in the home on Old Vincennes Road and could seek reimbursement from the estate. A bench trial was eventually scheduled for February 6, 2017. On January 20, 2017, Hall filed a motion for continuance stating he had not received certain requested discovery. Also on that date, Hall and Andres filed a joint motion for mediation. Tilly and Thomas objected to the motions.
[11] On January 31, 2017, the court issued an order stating it held a telephonic conference with all counsel participating, counsel for Hall and Andres proposed that their respective clients pay for the cost of mediation, and the requested discovery had relevance to the issues to be heard at trial and was apparently available from non-parties. The court granted Hall's motion to continue and found that the validity of Dorothy's will and her deeds were in dispute and that "[t]he interests of all three (3) parties are very much at stake in this case and such interests [are] substantial." Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 169. The court ordered that the parties participate in mediation, that Hall and Andres pay the cost of mediation, that supplemental discovery requests may be made until February 20, 2017, and that responses were due within twenty days thereafter.
[12] On March 14, 2017, a mediator's report was filed stating that mediation occurred on March 9, 2017, that all parties were present and represented by counsel, and that mediation was unsuccessful. On March 15, 2017, Hall's counsel filed a motion for extension of time stating that Tilly had served a request for admissions on or about February 21, 2017, while he was out of the state, the answers were due, and he was requesting until April 1, 2017 to file responses.
[13] On March 17, 2017, Tilly and Andres filed a Motion to Withdraw Petitions to Contest Will and Set Aside Deeds and Joint Motion to Dismiss Any and All Claims (the "Motion to Dismiss"). The Motion to Dismiss stated that Tilly and Andres had reached a settlement of the claims made by Andres and that they requested the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the estate. A minute entry stated that Hall's counsel was granted fourteen days from the date of the filing of the Motion to Dismiss to file a response.
[14] On March 31, 2017, new counsel for Hall filed an appearance and filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss which stated that Dorothy signed her will in 2008, her mental and physical health deteriorated in 2009, she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in February 2010, and that she purportedly signed a quitclaim deed on March 5, 2010, transferring the Old Vincennes Road property to Tilly. Hall argued that, throughout the course of the matter, the property was treated as property of the estate and pointed to the November 6, 2015 entry authorizing Tilly to replace the HVAC system in the home and seek reimbursement from the estate, Tilly's discovery upon him, and his agreement to the appointment of a special administrator. He asserted the court should not dismiss the claims based on Tilly's and Andres's secret agreement which did not account for his interest in the property and the request to set aside deeds.
[15] On April 6, 2017, Hall filed an affidavit in support of his response opposing the Motion to Dismiss. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit stated: "Dorothy Hall represented to me on numerous occasions that she wanted me to have the Property, as it belonged to my family and she wanted me to be able to continue to raise my cattle close to my home as I had done for decades." Appellant's Appendix Volume III at 43. Hall also stated in the affidavit that: he did not know, prior to Dorothy's death, of her alleged conveyance of his family's farm on Old Vincennes Road; Tilly and Thomas did not inform him that Dorothy had transferred the property to them or question his presence on the property until he received the November 4, 2014 letter; when speaking with him about the property, Tilly and Thomas always acted as if the property belonged to Dorothy and Hall's family; and that, until Dorothy's death, Tilly and Thomas always referred to the property as "mother's property" or "mother's house." Id. at 44.
[16] On April 14, 2017, Tilly filed a reply arguing Hall's claim that the 2010 deed be set aside was time-barred. Also on that date, she filed a motion to strike Hall's April 6, 2017 affidavit, arguing the affidavit was untimely and violated the Dead Man's Statutes at Ind. Code §§ 34-45-2-4 and -5. She also filed a Motion to Strike Jeff Hall's Discovery Responses and Certify Admissions which stated: the court provided the parties twenty days to respond to discovery requests; she served requests for admissions on Hall on February 20, 2017; he moved for an extension on March 15, 2017; he served answers to her requests which included a number of denials on March 31, 2017; his answers should be stricken from the record; and her requests for admissions should...
To continue reading
Request your trial