In the matter of the Supervised Estate of Gary L. Steinmetz, with personal representative Ruth Steinmetz v. Daryl Steinmetz (mem. dec.)
This text of In the matter of the Supervised Estate of Gary L. Steinmetz, with personal representative Ruth Steinmetz v. Daryl Steinmetz (mem. dec.) (In the matter of the Supervised Estate of Gary L. Steinmetz, with personal representative Ruth Steinmetz v. Daryl Steinmetz (mem. dec.)) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 09/06/2017, 10:06 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Leanna Weissmann Katherine A. Harmon Lawrenceburg, Indiana Jared S. Sunday Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the matter of the Supervised September 6, 2017 Estate of Gary L. Steinmetz, Court of Appeals Case No. deceased, with personal 15A05-1704-ES-701 representative Ruth Steinmetz Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit Appellant-Petitioner, Court The Honorable James Humphrey, v. Judge Trial Court Cause No. Daryl Steinmetz, 15C01-1611-ES-35 Appellee-Respondent
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1704-ES-701 | September 6, 2017 Page 1 of 4 [1] Ruth Steinmetz, as personal representative of the estate of her son Gary L.
Steinmetz, appeals the trial court’s denial of a petition to probate Gary’s
purported will. Concluding that the order from which Ruth appeals is neither a
final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal.
Facts & Procedural History
[2] Gary died unexpectedly on October 30, 2016, leaving behind Ruth, his sister
Donna Johnson, his brothers Daryl and Terrance Steinmetz, and his minor
niece Lydia Trabel (daughter of his deceased sister). On November 7, 2016,
Ruth sought appointment as the personal representative of Gary’s estate,
alleging that he died intestate. The trial court appointed Ruth personal
representative under supervised administration that same day.
[3] On December 8, 2016, Daryl filed a petition to remove Ruth as personal
representative or, in the alternative, to appoint a co-personal representative. In
the petition, Daryl alleged a belief that Ruth had been dissipating assets of the
estate for her own use and benefit. He also alleged that Ruth might have been
attempting to circumvent the legal distribution of the estate.
[4] The following day, Ruth filed a petition to probate Gary’s will, dated February
21, 2015, which she had allegedly just discovered at Gary’s house on the floor
next to his recliner. Ruth claimed that she was the sole heir named in the will
and should be executrix of the estate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1704-ES-701 | September 6, 2017 Page 2 of 4 [5] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on January 30 and February 21,
2017, to determine whether to admit the purported will to probate. The validity
of the handwritten document and whether it had been intended by Gary to be
his will were hotly contested issues at the hearing. The trial court took the
matter under advisement and, on March 8, 2017, entered an order denying
Ruth’s petition. Specifically, the trial court found insufficient evidence that the
document presented for probate constituted Gary’s last will and testament.
[6] On March 27, 2017, Daryl filed a renewed request to remove Ruth as personal
representative of the estate. Ruth quickly filed an inventory and appraisal of the
estate and a response to Daryl’s request to have her removed. The trial court
scheduled a hearing for April 18, 2017, which was later continued upon Ruth’s
filing of the instant appeal on April 7, 2017.
Discussion & Decision
[7] In her notice of appeal, Ruth indicates that her appeal of the March 8, 2017
order denying the petition for probate is an appeal from a final judgment. It is
not. See In re Estate of Botkins, 970 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
(“orders issued by a probate court are not final until the estate is closed”). See
also Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H)(1) (a judgment is final if, among other things, “it
disposes of all claims as to all parties”).
[8] Whether an order is a final judgment governs our appellate jurisdiction.
Botkins, 970 N.E.2d at 166. “The lack of [appellate] jurisdiction may be raised
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1704-ES-701 | September 6, 2017 Page 3 of 4 at any time, and where the parties do not raise the issue, this court may
consider it sua sponte.” Id.
[9] Here, because the estate remained open after entry of the appealed order, the
order does not constitute a final judgment. Id. at 166-67. Further, this
interlocutory order is not appealable as a matter of right under Ind. Appellate
Rule 14(A) and no certification of the order by the trial court and acceptance of
jurisdiction by this court under App. R. 14(B) has taken place. Accordingly, we
are without jurisdiction to entertain Ruth’s appeal.
[10] Appeal dismissed.
Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1704-ES-701 | September 6, 2017 Page 4 of 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the matter of the Supervised Estate of Gary L. Steinmetz, with personal representative Ruth Steinmetz v. Daryl Steinmetz (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-supervised-estate-of-gary-l-steinmetz-with-personal-indctapp-2017.