University of Southern Indiana Foundation v. Richard A. Baker and Integra Bank N.A. Trust and Investment Management Group

University of Southern Indiana Foundation v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2006) · Supreme Court of Indiana · March 14, 2006 · No. No. 82S04-0510-CV-488

Summary

The Supreme Court of Indiana interpreted an amended inter vivos trust concerning the distribution of Marian Boelson's individual retirement accounts, automobiles, furnishings, and other personal property. The court held that the term "personal property" was ambiguous in context and that relevant extrinsic evidence could be considered, including evidence of the settlor's intent. It reversed the lower court and directed distribution of the specified personal assets to Richard Baker, with the remaining real and personal property distributed to the University of Southern Indiana Foundation.

Holdings

  1. The term "personal property" was ambiguous in the context of Boelson's trust because, although it ordinarily has a technical meaning encompassing tangible and intangible property, the structure and language of the entire instrument created substantial doubt that Boelson intended that technical meaning.
  2. When a donative instrument is ambiguous, all relevant extrinsic evidence may be considered to resolve the ambiguity; Indiana's distinction between patent and latent ambiguities no longer serves a useful purpose.
  3. The undisputed extrinsic evidence established that Boelson intended to limit Baker's share to the IRAs, automobiles, furnishings, and other personal effects contained in her condominium; summary judgment was therefore appropriate.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended trust's reference to Baker's receipt of automobiles, furnishings, and other personal property was ambiguous in context.
  2. Whether extrinsic evidence of the settlor's intent was admissible to resolve the ambiguity even though the ambiguity arose from the text of the trust.
  3. Whether the undisputed extrinsic evidence established that Boelson intended to limit Baker's share to the IRAs, automobile, furnishings, and other personal effects in the condominium.
  4. Whether summary judgment was appropriate based on the undisputed evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (20)

  • Merrill v. Wimmer, 481 N.E.2d 1294, 1297 (Ind. 1985)(followed)
  • Freidline v. Shelby Insurance Co., 774 N.E.2d 37, 39 (Ind. 2002)(followed)
  • Hauck v. Second National Bank of Richmond, 153 Ind. App. 245, 259-60, 286 N.E.2d 852, 861 (1972), trans. denied(limited)
  • Kelly v. Estate of Johnson, 788 N.E.2d 933, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)(followed)
  • Skinner v. Spann, 175 Ind. 672, 697, 93 N.E. 1061, 1070 (1911), reh'g denied(distinguished)
  • Piersol v. Hays, 113 Ind. App. 214, 229, 47 N.E.2d 838, 844 (1943)(considered)
  • Grise v. Weiss, 213 Ind. 3, 9, 11 N.E.2d 146, 149 (1937)(followed)
  • Dougherty v. Rogers, 119 Ind. 254, 260, 20 N.E. 779, 781 (1889)(followed)
  • Ragsdale v. Robinson, 219 Ind. 335, 341, 38 N.E.2d 570, 572 (1942)(followed)
  • Hertford v. Harned, 185 Ind. 213, 219, 113 N.E. 727, 729 (1916)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…