Preview:

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.

FILED
Jun 13 2008, 9:21 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GREGG S. GORDON Dale & Eke, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: JOHN L. KELLERMAN Batesville, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ROBERT F. KECK and JANET L. RUSSELL, Appellants-Plaintiffs, vs. MARY ANN WALKER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edith M. Dawdy, SUNMAN COMMUNITY CHURCH, SUNMAN LIFE SQUAD, SUNMAN FIRE DEPARTMENT, ST. PAUL'S CEMETERY, ST. NICHOLAS CEMETERY FUND, BILL FRAZIER, EDITH ZIMMER, LESLIE ROBINSON, MARILEE HUNTER, WILBUR LUERS, NANCY GUTAPFEL, VIRGINIA TRAUTMAN, VIOLA BRUNS, ANGELA PROBST, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY LOWER EASTERN AREA a/k/a THE RIPLEY COUNTY CANCER FUND, THE HEART ASSOCIATION a/k/a THE RIPLEY COUNTY HEART FUND, THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION a/k/a THE RIPLEY COUNTY DIABETES FOUNDATION and THE MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS ASSOCIATION, Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 69A04-0710-CV-590

APPEAL FROM THE RIPLEY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Carl H. Taul, Judge Cause No. 69C01-0608-PL-7

June 13, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge

Robert F. Keck and Janet L. Russell claim they are entitled to property devised to their mother, Luella Keck, in the will of Edith M. Dawdy. The trial court concluded the devise lapsed and granted summary judgment for Dawdy's personal representative and the other beneficiaries of her will ("Appellees"). Keck and Russell filed a motion to correct error, which was denied. They appeal from that order. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Dawdy executed a will that named her cousin, Luella Keck, as a residuary beneficiary. Luella passed away on July 8, 1995, but Dawdy executed two codicils after Luella's death that continued to include Luella as a beneficiary. Dawdy passed away on April 28, 2006. Her will and the two codicils were admitted to probate on May 8, 2006. Keck and Russell filed a two-count complaint. Count 1 alleged the will was invalid for various reasons. Count 2 alleged Dawdy executed the codicils knowing Luella was dead and she intended Luella's share to pass to Keck and Russell.

2

Keck and Russell moved for summary judgment on Count 2. The trial court ruled the devise to Luella lapsed and granted summary judgment for the Appellees. Keck and Russell filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. The trial court then certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal. DISCUSSION AND DECISION The Appellees argue the trial court entered a final judgment, and therefore Keck and Russell could not bring this as an interlocutory appeal.1 The trial court concluded Keck and Walker were not beneficiaries under the terms of Dawdy's will. The Appellees argue that, because Keck and Walker have no standing to challenge the validity of the will, the trial court's order disposed of both counts of their complaint. Pursuant to Ind. Code

Download Robert F. Keck and Janet L. Russell v. Mary Ann Walker, Sunman Community Church,

Indiana Law