Estate of Prickett v. Womersley

905 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2009) · Supreme Court of Indiana · May 13, 2009 · No. 71S03-0808-CV-419

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that a family member's services to an incapacitated person are presumed gratuitous and that the presumption was not rebutted by the ward's written desire to compensate her daughter. Because the ward was subject to a guardianship over her estate, she lacked authority to contract for compensation, and the daughter had not shown an express or implied contract with the guardian or obtained the guardian's approval. The court also held that the daughter's claim could properly be filed against the decedent's probate estate rather than being required to be filed in the guardianship proceeding, but reversed the denial of summary judgment on the gratuitous-services issue.

Holdings

  1. The Guardianship Code does not require a claim for personal services rendered in a non-fiduciary capacity to a protected person to be filed in the guardianship estate rather than in the later probate estate of the deceased protected person.
  2. Evidence that an incapacitated ward desired that a family member be compensated does not, by itself, rebut Indiana's presumption that services rendered by family members living together in a family context were gratuitous.
  3. A family member cannot rebut the gratuitous-services presumption merely by showing that the ward requested necessary services; absent exigent circumstances, guardian approval is required to secure compensation for family services provided to a protected person.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a claim for personal services rendered to a protected person in a non-fiduciary capacity had to be filed in the guardianship estate rather than in the subsequent probate estate.
  2. Whether a family member's evidence that an incapacitated ward wanted the family member to be compensated rebutted Indiana's presumption that services rendered in a family context were gratuitous.
  3. Whether the appointment of a guardian of the ward's estate deprived the ward of the legal power to authorize compensation for services or enter into a contract for those services.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (16)

  • Estate of Prickett v. Womersley, 885 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(followed in part and rejected in part)
  • In re Guardianship of E.N., 877 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. 2007)(followed)
  • Harrison v. Bishop, 131 Ind. 161, 30 N.E. 1069, 1071 (1892)(cited)
  • Peters v. Hanlin, 220 Ind. 175, 41 N.E.2d 604, 605 (1942)(followed)
  • Schwartz v. Schwartz, 773 N.E.2d 348, 354-356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)(followed and applied)
  • Estate of Hann v. Hann, 614 N.E.2d 973, 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)(cited)
  • Hill v. Hill, 121 Ind. 255, 23 N.E. 87, 88-89 (1889)(followed)
  • Cole v. Cole, 517 N.E.2d 1248, 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988)(followed)
  • Schroeder v. Schroeder, 117 Ind. App. 410, 70 N.E.2d 764, 765 (1947)(followed)
  • Grout v. Solon, 131 Ind. App. 650, 174 N.E.2d 593, 594 (1961)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…