Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Jeffrey P. Smith David K. Hawk Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE William L. Wilson Bernard E. Edwards South Bend, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 71S03-0808-CV-419 ESTATE OF MARGARET H. PRICKETT, DECEASED,

FILED
May 13 2009, 1:52 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

Appellant (Defendant below), v. MARILYN PRICKETT WOMERSLEY, Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate Court, No. 71J01-0302-ES-92 The Honorable Peter J. Nemeth, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 71A03-0710-CV-488 _________________________________ May 13, 2009 Sullivan, Justice.

A woman seeks compensation for the value of her services while caring for her mother when the mother was subject to a guardianship. Indiana law presumes that services by a family member are rendered gratuitously. In this case, the presumption cannot be rebutted by evidence that the mother wanted her daughter to be compensated because the mother was under a guardianship and the guardian did not consent.

Background

In October, 1999, the St. Joseph County Probate Court found that Margaret H. Prickett was an incapacitated person who needed the protection of a guardianship. The court appointed Real Services, Inc., and a daughter, M. Carolyn Prickett Gutman, as co-guardians of Mrs. Pricketts person, and appointed 1st Source Bank as guardian of her estate. Real Services and Gutman were responsible for providing care for her personal needs, the costs for which were to be overseen and paid by 1st Source. During the guardianship, Mrs. Prickett lived with another daughter, Marilyn Prickett Womersley, who appeared by counsel in the guardianship proceedings.

Mrs. Prickett passed away in February, 2003. Her estate was opened that same month in the same court in which the guardianship was pending. In May, 2003, Womersley filed a claim against the Estate for approximately $546,000. Womersley sought reimbursement for various expenses and personal services she rendered to her mother during the time they lived together. Womersley never sought reimbursement from the guardian; the court eventually terminated the guardianship in 2004 after approving the guardians final accounting. In 2006, the Estate sought summary judgment with respect to Womersleys claim on two grounds: (1) the expenses and personal services provided by Womersley were, as a matter of law, "gratuitous," and therefore not compensable;1 and (2) that any claims asserted by Womersley were time-barred because they were not filed in the guardianship. In reply, Wormersley designated certain evidence that the court concluded created genuine issues of material fact as to whether the services were gratuitous as a matter of law. The probate court denied the Estates summary judgment motion but did, at the Estates request, certify its order for interlocutory appeal.

1

The parties do not distinguish between the expenses and personal services, and Indiana law appears to extend the presumption that services are gratuitous to expenses as well. Smith v. Husted, 28 Ind. App. 168, 62 N.E. 454, 455 (1902).

2

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Estate sought, and we granted, transfer pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). Estate of Prickett v. Womersley, 885 N.E.2d 619, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Discussion

I "Indiana law allows for the appointment of a guardian to act in the best interests of a person who is unable to care for [her]self or for [her] property. See Ind. Code

Download Estate of Margaret H. Prickett, Deceased v. Marilyn Prickett Womersley.pdf

Indiana Law