In the Matter of the Trust of H. Paul Lauster, and Mary E. Lauster, Christopher D. Lauster v. John M. Lauster and David P. Lauster (mem. dec.)

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 25, 2015
Docket43A03-1407-TR-237
StatusPublished

This text of In the Matter of the Trust of H. Paul Lauster, and Mary E. Lauster, Christopher D. Lauster v. John M. Lauster and David P. Lauster (mem. dec.) (In the Matter of the Trust of H. Paul Lauster, and Mary E. Lauster, Christopher D. Lauster v. John M. Lauster and David P. Lauster (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.

Bluebook
In the Matter of the Trust of H. Paul Lauster, and Mary E. Lauster, Christopher D. Lauster v. John M. Lauster and David P. Lauster (mem. dec.), (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 25 2015, 10:29 am

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Joseph A. Sobek Paul D. Refior Reed & Earhart Attorneys, P.C. Refior Law Office Warsaw, Indiana Warsaw, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Trust of H. March 25, 2015 Paul Lauster, Deceased, and Court of Appeals Case No. Mary E. Lauster, Deceased, 43A03-1407-TR-237 Appeal from the Christopher D. Lauster, Kosciusko Superior Court Appellant-Petitioner, The Honorable James R. Heuer, Special Judge v. Cause No. 43D01-1208-TR-136

John M. Lauster and David P. Lauster, Appellees-Co-Trustees.

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] This case involves a dispute between Christopher D. Lauster (“Christopher”)

and John M. Lauster (“John”) and David P. Lauster (“David”) (together, “the

Trustees”) regarding the administration of the joint revocable trust of their

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 43A03-1407-TR-237 | March 25, 2015 Page 1 of 11 parents. Christopher appeals the trial court’s order, which denied the relief

Christopher sought in his motion to enforce the mediation agreement.

Christopher raises the following restated issues for our review:

I. Whether the trial court erred in considering the accounting of the trust assets provided by the Trustees and not requiring supporting documentation to substantiate the accounting; and II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of attorney fees ordered. The Trustees additionally raise an issue requesting appellate attorney fees,

alleging that Christopher’s appeal is frivolous and brought in bad faith.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In May 2010, H. Paul Lauster passed away, and in September 2010, his wife,

Mary E. Lauster (together, “the Parents”) also passed away. At the time of the

Parents’ death, a trust was in place for the equal shared benefit of the Parents’

eight children, including Christopher, John, and David. John and David were

named as co-trustees of the trust, and John, an accountant, prepared the

accounting of the trust. John kept track of all of the trust accounting in a

spreadsheet, and the detailed ledger was admitted at the hearing. Christopher

received summaries of the trust accounting annually. The trust accounting

reflected all amounts received and expended from the trust. Christopher also

received directly from the bank a copy of the bank statement that reflected the

trust’s monetary receipts and expenditures.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 43A03-1407-TR-237 | March 25, 2015 Page 2 of 11 [4] On August 27, 2012, Christopher filed a petition to docket the trust and to

remove the Trustees and/or compel the Trustees to perform their duties. On

November 5, 2012, the trial court ordered the case to mediation. The

mediation occurred on April 22, 2013, and resulted in a written and signed

mediation agreement on April 24, 2013. In pertinent part, the mediation

agreement stated:

1. An accounting shall be provided to all heirs. .... 3. The Trust shall pay Scott Lennox [sic] fee on behalf of [Christopher] which fee is approximately $4,000.00 as of the start of the mediation. Pet’r’s Ex. 1.

[5] On September 26, 2013, Christopher filed a motion to enforce the mediation

agreement, contending that the Trustees, among other things: (1) failed to

“provide an adequate and appropriate accounting,” which lacked

“documentation supporting any of the accounting figures” despite his repeated

requests; and (2) failed to pay the attorney fees incurred by Christopher and

payable pursuant to the mediation agreement despite his submission of

documentation of such fees. Appellant’s App. at 6. On the same date, the

Trustees filed a counter-motion to enforce the mediation agreement, detailing

how Christopher had not followed the mediation agreement and had declined

to cooperate and requesting attorney fees incurred since the mediation. Id. at

28-29. A hearing on the parties’ motions was held on January 31, 2014, and the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 43A03-1407-TR-237 | March 25, 2015 Page 3 of 11 trial court took the matter under advisement. On June 17, 2014, the trial court

issued its order, which found in pertinent part:

1. The Trust balance which is subject to distribution is $139,799.34. 2. [Christopher’s] share is one-eighth or $17,474.92. .... 4. The [Trustees] shall deliver the sum of $4,000.00 in attorney fees to Attorney Scott Lennox on or before July 11, 2014. 5. [Christopher’s] claims for additional attorney fees, interest and appraisal expenses are denied. .... 10. The [Trustees’] claim for attorney fees and expenses is denied. Id. at 45-46. Christopher now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] When the trial court enters an order containing findings of fact and conclusions,

we apply a two-step review. In re Wilson, 930 N.E.2d 646, 650 (Ind. Ct. App.

2010), trans. denied. First, we consider whether the evidence supports the

findings, and second, whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will

neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, considering only the

evidence most favorable to the judgment. Id. We will set aside the trial court’s

findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, if the record

contains no facts or inferences supporting them. Id. We apply a de novo

standard of review to conclusions of law. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 43A03-1407-TR-237 | March 25, 2015 Page 4 of 11 I. Accounting [7] Christopher argues that the trial court erred in failing to order an accurate

accounting for the trust. Specifically, he contends that, although he requested

supporting documentation from the Trustees to substantiate the trust

accounting, he never received any checks, receipts, or other supporting

documents. Christopher asserts that, under Indiana law, he was entitled to

“complete and accurate information concerning any matter related to the

administration of the trust” and to be permitted to inspect the trust accounts.

Appellant’s Br. at 6 (citing Ind. Code § 30-4-3-6(b)(6), (7)). He further claims that

the parties agreed to such an accounting in mediation, but the trial court failed

to order such a complete and accurate accounting and, instead, concluded that

the arbitrary amount of $139,799.34 was accurate.

[8] Generally, a trustee bears the burden of justifying the propriety of items in a

trust account. In re Riddle, 946 N.E.2d 61, 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). But when a

trustee files specific accounts and makes a prima facie showing that the accounts

are proper, the burden of persuasion shifts to the beneficiaries to show specific

instances of impropriety. Id. With respect to a trustee’s obligation to render an

accounting, Indiana Code section 30-4-5-12 states, in pertinent part:

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

Related

Georgos v. Jackson
790 N.E.2d 448 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2003)
Wilson v. Barker
930 N.E.2d 646 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2010)
Thacker v. Wentzel
797 N.E.2d 342 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2003)
Poulard v. LaPorte County Election Board
922 N.E.2d 734 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2010)
Fackler v. Powell
891 N.E.2d 1091 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2008)
Pinkowski v. Calumet Township of Lake County
852 N.E.2d 971 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2006)
Kotsopoulos v. Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc.
962 N.E.2d 97 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2012)
Goins v. Riddle
946 N.E.2d 61 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2011)
Carnes v. Estate of Carnes
866 N.E.2d 260 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In the Matter of the Trust of H. Paul Lauster, and Mary E. Lauster, Christopher D. Lauster v. John M. Lauster and David P. Lauster (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-trust-of-h-paul-lauster-and-m-indctapp-2015.