Donnie Wayne Winningham, Kelly Annette Winningham, and Kristy Milburn v. The Supervised Estate of Keri L. Winningham and Interested Party Estate of Leigh Ann Schattner (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                         FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                 Aug 30 2017, 5:22 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                  CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                   Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                              and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Richard Walker                                           THE SUPERVISED ESTATE OF
    Anderson, Indiana                                        KERI L. WINNINGHAM
    Julia Blackwell Gelinas
    Jeffrey S. Dible
    Maggie L. Smith
    Frost Brown Todd LLC
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    ATTORNEY FOR INTERESTED
    PARTY APPELLEE ESTATE OF
    LEIGH ANN SCHATTNER
    Mark Alan Bennett
    Anderson, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Donnie Wayne Winningham,                                 August 30, 2017
    Kelly Annette Winningham, and                            Court of Appeals Case No.
    Kristy Milburn,                                          48A04-1606-ES-1508
    Appellants-Beneficiaries                                 Appeal from the Madison Circuit
    Court
    v.                                               The Honorable Mark K. Dudley,
    Judge
    The Supervised Estate of Keri L.                         The Honorable Jason A. Childers,
    Winningham and Interested                                Master Commissioner
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1606-ES-1508 | August 30, 2017            Page 1 of 5
    Party Estate of Leigh Ann                                Trial Court Cause No.
    Schattner                                                48C06-1507-ES-302
    Appellees-Petitioner/Interested Party
    Baker, Judge.
    [1]   Donnie Winningham, Kelly Winningham, and Kristy Milburn (collectively, the
    Appellants) bring this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order that the
    proceeds from two wrongful death claims be distributed to the beneficiaries
    designated under the Adult Wrongful Death Act,1 rather than the beneficiaries
    designated under the intestate succession statute.2 We affirm and remand for
    further proceedings.
    [2]   The Appellants are the half-siblings of Keri Winningham.3 On September 27,
    2014, Winningham was walking in Anderson when she was struck by a vehicle
    driven by one person and then run over by a vehicle driven by another person;
    1
    
    Ind. Code § 34-23-1-2
    .
    2
    
    Ind. Code § 29-1-2-1
    .
    3
    The interested party, Leigh Ann Schattner, was Winningham’s mother. Schattner passed away after
    Winningham’s death but before the trial court authorized the distribution of Winningham’s assets.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1606-ES-1508 | August 30, 2017       Page 2 of 5
    she died as a result. At the time of her death, Winningham was a twenty-six-
    year-old unmarried adult who did not have a will.
    [3]   Lori Rumreich, Winningham’s aunt, opened a supervised estate for
    Winningham and was appointed personal representative. As personal
    representative, Rumreich brought wrongful death claims against two insurance
    companies. Both companies agreed to settle the claims.
    [4]   In her petition to open the estate, Rumreich listed the proceeds from the
    wrongful death claims as assets of the probate estate subject to distribution to
    the intestate beneficiaries. Sometime after receiving the trial court’s
    authorization to distribute those proceeds through intestate succession, but
    before the distribution actually took place, Rumreich became aware of the
    possibility that the proceeds were not assets of the probate estate and should not
    have been included in the assets to be distributed through intestate succession.
    [5]   Rumreich filed a motion to stay the trial court’s order authorizing distribution
    of the proceeds from the wrongful death claims through intestate succession
    and requested that the trial court provide instructions on which statute should
    govern the distribution of the proceeds. The trial court stayed its prior order.
    On May 6, 2016, a hearing took place, and on May 24, 2016, the trial court
    entered an order providing that the proceeds from the wrongful death claims
    were to be distributed to the beneficiaries designated under the wrongful death
    statute. The Appellants now appeal.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1606-ES-1508 | August 30, 2017   Page 3 of 5
    [6]   A probate estate includes the property transferred at the death of a decedent
    under the decedent’s will or under Indiana’s statute for an intestate decedent.
    I.C. § 29-1-1-3(a)(24). Our Court has long held the view that wrongful death
    proceeds are not included in the probate estate and therefore are not distributed
    under our intestate statute. Specifically, our Court has noted “that funds
    collected as a result of any wrongful death action beyond reasonable medical,
    hospital, funeral and burial expense are not an asset of the decedent’s estate.
    They inure to the exclusive benefit of” the statutory beneficiaries. In re Estate of
    Hutman, 
    705 N.E.2d 1060
    , 1064 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted); see also, e.g., Blusy v. Rugh, 
    476 N.E.2d 874
    , 876
    (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (“a wrongful death action is not an asset of the decedent’s
    estate”). In other words, the trial court did not err by ordering that the proceeds
    from the wrongful death claims be distributed pursuant to the adult wrongful
    death statute.
    [7]   The Appellants also contend that the proceeds from the wrongful death claims
    should not be distributed under the Adult Wrongful Death Act because it has
    not been established that Winningham’s mother meets the statutory
    requirements. Specifically, the Appellants point to the requirement that a
    “parent or child who wishes to recover damages under this section has the
    burden of proving that the parent or child had a genuine, substantial, and
    ongoing relationship with the adult person before the parent or child may
    recover damages.” I.C. § 34-23-1-2(f). This argument is premature. The trial
    court did not order that the proceeds be distributed to any specific person;
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1606-ES-1508 | August 30, 2017   Page 4 of 5
    rather, the trial court ordered that the proceeds be distributed pursuant to the
    adult wrongful death statute. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 79. We therefore
    remand so that the trial court can determine who is entitled to the proceeds.
    [8]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded for further
    proceedings.
    Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1606-ES-1508 | August 30, 2017   Page 5 of 5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 48A04-1606-ES-1508

Filed Date: 8/30/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/30/2017