Lexplug logoLexplug

McCoy v. Like

Indiana Court of Appeals
511 N.E.2d 501, 1987 Ind. App. LEXIS 2956 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under modern rules of civil procedure, a will contest may be joined with other claims, such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, and additional parties may be joined as defendants, provided the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact.


Facts:

  • In 1976, Martha McCoy executed a will leaving her property equally to all her nieces and nephews.
  • On November 17, 1983, Martha McCoy, then 79, appointed Dr. Jerry Like, whose wife Georgialee was her niece, as her power of attorney.
  • On the same day, Martha entered into a contract to sell over 120 acres of real estate to Dr. Like and Georgialee.
  • Less than a month later, the land sale contract was amended to substantially lower the purchase price.
  • Dr. Like and his wife never made any payments to Martha on the land contract.
  • On February 16, 1984, Martha executed a new will, prepared by Dr. Like's attorney, which bequeathed the balance due on the land contract to Georgialee and two other nieces, with the remainder of her estate going to all nieces and nephews.
  • The 1984 will also nominated Dr. Like to be the personal representative of her estate.
  • Martha McCoy died on July 11, 1985.

Procedural Posture:

  • William McCoy and other nephews/nieces (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in Knox Circuit Court to contest Martha McCoy's 1984 will.
  • The action was transferred to Greene Circuit Court upon the plaintiffs' motion.
  • The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Dr. Like as a defendant in his individual capacity.
  • The amended complaint added new claims to set aside a land contract and for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud against Dr. Like individually.
  • Dr. Like, as an individual, and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the additional claims and Dr. Like in his individual capacity.
  • The trial court granted the motions, dismissing all claims except the original will contest and removing Dr. Like as an individual defendant.
  • The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the Indiana Rules of Procedure permit the joinder of additional claims and parties to a will contest when those claims and parties are logically related to the execution of the will?


Opinions:

Majority - Ratliff, Chief Judge.

Yes. The Indiana Rules of Procedure permit the joinder of additional, logically related claims and parties to a will contest. The court reasoned that Trial Rule 20(A) allows for the permissive joinder of defendants when the claims against them arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact. Applying the 'logical relationship' test, the court found that the execution of the power of attorney, the land contract, and the 1984 will were all part of an alleged single scheme to defraud Martha McCoy. The common questions of law and fact included Martha's mental state and whether she was under undue influence. Furthermore, under Trial Rule 18(A), once a party is properly joined, a plaintiff may join as many claims as they have against that party, without exception for will contests. This holding explicitly abrogates older precedent, such as Summers v. Copeland, which treated will contests as special proceedings not subject to the general rules of joinder. The court also noted that even if joinder were improper, the correct remedy is to sever the claims or drop a party under Trial Rule 21(A), not to dismiss the action.



Analysis:

This decision significantly modernized probate litigation in Indiana by applying the state's liberal joinder rules to will contests, bringing them in line with other civil actions. It discarded the antiquated view that will contests were special proceedings that could not be combined with other causes of action. This promotes judicial economy by allowing all logically related disputes arising from an alleged scheme of undue influence or fraud to be resolved in a single proceeding, rather than requiring multiple, duplicative lawsuits. The case solidifies the principle that procedural rules should be interpreted broadly to facilitate the efficient and complete resolution of disputes.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query McCoy v. Like (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for McCoy v. Like