FILED
Mar 15 2018, 7:33 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Bruce Norman Stier Renee L. Riecke
Logan & Stier, LLC William A. Ramsey
Fort Wayne, Indiana Barrett McNagny, LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Wilford Allen Hahn
Matheny Hahn & Denman, LLP
Huntington, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James R. Cramer, March 15, 2018
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
35A05-1704-TR-774
v. Appeal from the Huntington
Circuit Court
Robert J. Edwards, The Honorable Thomas Hakes,
Appellee. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
35C01-1602-TR-5
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] James Cramer appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Robert
Edwards, as personal representative of the Estate of Paul H. Cramer and
Successor Trustee of the Paul H. Cramer Trust (“Edwards”). We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 1 of 9
Issue
[2] Cramer raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial
court properly found that the trustor failed to properly amend her trust.
Facts
[3] Deloris Brock had two children, Cramer and Paul Cramer. On February 15,
2002, Brock, as trustor, executed the Deloris I. Brock Living Trust Agreement
(“Trust”). The Trust provided:
ARTICLE FOUR
AMENDMENT AND REVOCATION
Section A. Trustor’s Individual Addition Rights. Trustor may,
during Trustor’s life, by signed instruments delivered to the
Trustee, add Trustor’s property to the Trust.
Section B. Trustor’s Rights of Amendment and Revocation.
During the life of the Trustor, the Trustor may alter, amend, or
revoke this Trust Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time or
from time to time by an instrument in writing (other than a will)
signed and delivered to the Trustee; provided, however, that the
duties, powers and responsibilities of the Trustee shall not be
substantially altered or amended without its written consent.
From and after the death of the Trustor all trusts created herein,
and this Trust Agreement, shall be unamendable and irrevocable.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 17. Upon Brock’s death, the Trust provided for
distribution of the Trust assets as follows: (1) sixty percent to Paul Cramer, and
(2) forty percent to James Cramer. The Trust also allowed the Trustee to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 2 of 9
distribute Brock’s “personal effects” as directed “by a separate written statement
or list, prepared and signed by the Trustor for that purpose, to those persons
name[d] therein.” Id. at 18. The Trust defined “personal effects” as “family
assets . . . of a personal or household nature, such as clothing, jewelry,
furniture, glassware, silver, works of art, pets, cameras, appliances, consumer
electronic items and collections.” Id.
[4] On February 22, 2002, Brock conveyed, by warranty deed, her residence to the
Trust. On May 12, 2002, Brock also executed a “Separate Writing to the Last
Will and Testament of Deloris I. Brock and the Brock Revocable Living Trust
U/D/T/ Dated 2-15-02” (“Separate Writing”). The one-page Separate
Writing provided in full:
This Separate Writing identifying and disposing of items of
personal tangible property is made pursuant to the provisions of
Article Three of my Last Will and Testament dated 2-15-02, and
I hereby authorize and direct my Personal Representative to
distribute my personal tangible property listed below as follows:
Id. at 120. The document then listed several handwritten items of personal
property and their recipients. It also included the following: “House Lot #3”
with recipients of “Paul H Cramer J.R. Cramer Right of survivor if not sold.”
Id.
[5] Brock died on September 14, 2013. A last will and testament was never
located. Paul was appointed Trustee, but he died on November 11, 2014.
Cramer was appointed the successor Trustee. Edwards was appointed as the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 3 of 9
personal representative of Paul’s Estate and as First Successor Trustee of the
Paul H. Cramer Trust.
[6] On February 29, 2016, Cramer filed a Petition to Docket Trust to Determine
Interests of Beneficiaries. The petition noted that a dispute existed between
Cramer and Edwards regarding the validity and construction of the Separate
Writing. Cramer contended that the house should be distributed to him as “the
survivor following” Paul’s death. Id. at 11.
[7] Edwards filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Separate
Writing did “not operate to amend or alter the terms of the Trust” and that
Paul’s estate and trust were entitled to sixty percent of the value of Brock’s real
property. Id. at 84. In response, Cramer argued that the Separate Writing was
an amendment to the Trust and that he was entitled to the real property due to
the right of survivorship. After a hearing, the trial court granted Edwards’s
motion for summary judgment. Cramer now appeals.
Analysis
[8] The issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly found that Brock failed
to properly amend the Trust through the Separate Writing. Summary judgment
is appropriate only when the moving party shows there are no genuine issues of
material fact for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Schoettmer v. Wright, 992 N.E.2d 702, 705 (Ind. 2013); see also T.R. 56(C).
Once that showing is made, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to rebut
it. Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 705-06. When ruling on the motion, the trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 4 of 9
construes all evidence and resolves all doubts in favor of the nonmoving party.
Id. at 706. We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and
we take “care to ensure that no party is denied his [or her] day in court.” Id.
[9] Brock transferred the real property to the Trust in 2002, and under the Trust, it
would be distributed as sixty percent to Paul and forty percent to Cramer.
According to Cramer, Brock properly amended her Trust when she executed
the Separate Writing, the language of the Separate Writing demonstrates that it
was an amendment, and he was entitled to receive the property as the surviving
joint tenancy beneficiary. The interpretation of a trust is a question of law for
the court. Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528, 531 (Ind. 2006). The
primary purpose in construing a trust instrument is to ascertain and give effect
to the settlor’s intention. Id. at 532. We are not “at liberty to rewrite the trust
agreement any more than it is at liberty to rewrite contracts.” Malachowski v.
Bank One, Indianapolis, 590 N.E.2d 559, 565-66 (Ind. 1992).
[10] For two reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly granted Edwards’s
motion for summary judgment. First, Brock was permitted to amend the Trust
if she did so in compliance with the Trust and Indiana Code Section 30-4-3-1.5.
That statute provides in relevant part:
(c) The settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust
as follows:
(1) The settlor may comply with a method
provided in the terms of the trust.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 5 of 9
(2) If the terms of the trust do not provide a
method or the terms of the trust provide a
method that is not expressly made the
exclusive method to revoke or amend the
trust, the settlor may revoke or amend the
trust by:
(A) executing a later will or codicil that:
(i) expressly refers to the trust; or
(ii) specifically devises property that
would otherwise have passed
according to the terms of the
trust; or
(B) any other method that:
(i) is in writing; and
(ii) manifests clear and convincing
evidence of the settlor’s intent.
Ind. Code § 30-4-3-1.5(c).
[11] The Trust provided that the Trustor could amend the Trust, “in whole or in
part, at any time or from time to time by an instrument in writing (other than a
will) signed and delivered to the Trustee . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 17.
Other than requiring the amendment to be in writing, the Trust did not require
a specific method for amending the Trust. Under Indiana Code Section 30-4-3-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 6 of 9
1.5(c)(2)(B), the amendment was required to “manifest[] clear and convincing
evidence of the settlor’s intent” to amend.
[12] Here, the Separate Writing only mentioned the Trust in the heading. The
actual text of the Separate Writing did not mention the Trust, amending the
Trust in any way, or the Trustee. In fact, the text only specifically mentions the
disposal of personal tangible property under the provisions of Brock’s Last Will
and Testament and authorizes her personal representative to distribute such
property. The Separate Writing simply did not demonstrate clear and
convincing evidence that Brock intended to amend the Trust.
[13] Second, we note that the Trust allowed the Trustee to distribute Brock’s
“personal effects” as directed “by a separate written statement or list, prepared
and signed by the Trustor for that purpose, to those persons name[d] therein.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 18. However, Indiana Code Section 30-4-2.1-11
governs such written statements and provides:
(a) A written statement or list that:
(1) complies with this section; and
(2) is referred to in a settlor’s trust that was
revocable during the settlor’s lifetime;
may be used to dispose of items of tangible personal
property, other than property used in a trade or
business, not otherwise specifically disposed of by
the trust.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 7 of 9
(b) To be admissible under this section as evidence of
the intended disposition, the writing must be signed
by the settlor and must describe the items and the
beneficiaries with reasonable certainty. The writing
may be prepared before or after the execution of the
trust. The writing may be altered by the settlor after
the writing is prepared. The writing may have no
significance apart from the writing’s effect on the
dispositions made by the trust.
(c) If more than one (1) otherwise effective writing
exists, then, to the extent of a conflict among the
writings, the provisions of the most recent writing
revoke the inconsistent provisions of each earlier
writing.
[14] We addressed this statute in Turner v. Kent, 15 N.E.3d 67, 71 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014), trans. denied, and held:
The plain language of Indiana Code section 30-4-2.1-11(a)(2)
permits a trust’s incorporation by reference of specific gifts of
“tangible personal property.” Because the statute does not
expressly permit specific gifts of real property, we conclude that
they are prohibited. This conclusion finds support in the General
Assembly’s enumeration of “real property” in other provisions of
the Trust Code. See Ind. Code § 30-4-2-1, (providing specifically
for “real or personal property”); Ind. Code 30-4-3.5-2(c)(4)
(providing specifically for “tangible and intangible personal
property, and real property”); see also Ind. Code § 30-4-3-1.5
(providing generally for “trust property” and “property”).
Consequently, such written statements cannot be used to gift real property.
Even if Brock’s Separate Writing was intended as an amendment to the Trust,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 8 of 9
she could not use the Separate Writing to gift her real property. 1 The real
property must be distributed to the Trust beneficiaries as directed in the Trust.
The trial court properly granted Edwards’s motion for summary judgment.
Conclusion
[15] The trial court properly granted Edwards’s motion for summary judgment. We
affirm.
[16] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
1
Cramer attempts to distinguish Turner because that case involved an “incorporation by reference” rather
than an amendment. However, Indiana Code Section 30-4-2.1-11 applies to any such writings, not just
documents incorporated by reference. We find Turner persuasive here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 35A05-1704-TR-774| March 15, 2018 Page 9 of 9