Hunter v. Hollars

573 N.E.2d 905, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 988, 1991 WL 115545
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 25, 1991
DocketNo. 18A02-9011-CV-666
StatusPublished

This text of 573 N.E.2d 905 (Hunter v. Hollars) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunter v. Hollars, 573 N.E.2d 905, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 988, 1991 WL 115545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

SHIELDS, Judge.

Faaron Hunter appeals the trial court's judgment denying him a portion of the proceeds of his wife's wrongful death action.

We reverse.

Hunter's wife, Bonita Hollars, died intestate. When Bonita died, Hunter was incarcerated and Phyllis and Buster Hollars, Bonita's parents, were appointed co-guardians of Bonita's minor children. The Hol-lars were also appointed co-administrators of Bonita's estate. A wrongful death action brought on Bonita's behalf provided a $51,000 settlement. The co-administrators filed a petition to pay funeral and burial expenses and attorney fees and to distribute the remainder of the recovery to them as co-guardians. The trial court granted the petition following a hearing. Hunter appeals.

Hunter correctly argues the trial court erred in failing to distribute the proceeds as directed by IC 84-1-1-2 (1988). This statute provides that any damages remaining after the payment of medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses shall inure to the benefit of the widow or widower and to [906]*906the dependent children and shall be distributed in the same manner as the personal property of the deceased.

The trial court erred in denying Hunter a portion of the proceeds based on its determination Hunter did not have a pecuniary interest in Bonita's estate. The issue of pecuniary loss is relevant only as to the recovery from the tortfeasor and not as to the distribution of the amount recovered.1 See Northern Indiana Power Co. v. West (1941), 218 Ind. 321, 32 N.E.2d 713 (damages are not apportioned among those entitled to participate therein, but are assessed in gross and distributed in the same manner as the personal estate of the decedent). The latter issue, distribution of the remainder of the recovery after the payment of the statutorily enumerated expenses, has been determined by a legislative mandate-it is to be distributed in the same manner as the decedent's personal property. Here, Bonita died intestate. Therefore, all sums remaining after payment of the statutory expenses shall be distributed to Hunter and to the Hollars as co-guardians of the minor children under the rules of intestate succession.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

STATON and SULLIVAN, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

HAHN v. Moore
133 N.E.2d 900 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1956)
KIRKPATRICK v. Bowyer
169 N.E.2d 409 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1960)
New York Cent. RR Co. v. JOHNSON, ADMX., ETC.
127 N.E.2d 603 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1955)
Lindley v. Sink
30 N.E.2d 456 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1940)
Northern Indiana Power Company v. West, Admx.
32 N.E.2d 713 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1941)
Pennsylvania Co. v. Reesor
108 N.E. 983 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Thompson
134 N.E. 514 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
573 N.E.2d 905, 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 988, 1991 WL 115545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-hollars-indctapp-1991.