dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to Issue III because I believe that a jury question exists as to whether the Chamberlains are “dependent next of kin” as that phrase is contemplated under Indiana’s wrongful death statute, Ind. Code 34-1-1-2.
Where dependent next of kin are the beneficial claimants under Ind.Code 34-1-1-2, the personal representative must show “a need or necessity for support on the part of those persons alleged to be dependent, coupled with an actual contribution of such support by the deceased.” Koger v. Reid, 417 N.E.2d 1142, 1144 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (citing New York Cent R.R. Co. v. Johnson, Admx., 234 Ind. 457, 127 N.E.2d 603 (1955)). In applying this test for dependency, this court stated as follows:
Dependency is based on a condition and not a promise, and such dependency must be actual, amounting to a necessitous want on the part of the beneficiary and a recognition of that necessity on the part of decedent, an actual dependence coupled with a reasonable expectation of support or with some reasonable claim to support from decedent. The mere fact that deceased occasionally contributed to the support of the beneficiary in an irregular way, is not sufficient to support the action, but it is not necessary that the beneficiary be wholly dependent.
Kirkpatrick et al. v. Bowyer, 131 Ind.App. 86, 94, 169 N.E.2d 409, 412 (1960).
The Chamberlains contend that although the decedent made no financial contributions to the household, James’s services were of pecuniary value to them and therefore com-pensable. James Chamberlain was 25 years old and resided with his parents at the time *1386of his death. While it is undisputed that James neither made direct financial contributions to his parents nor that the Chamberlains needed his financial assistance, the evidence reveals that they were dependent on James in other ways. As the majority opinion notes, the Chamberlains relied upon James for many domestic services and aid in their retirement.
The performance of services for the beneficial claimants may be sufficient to show that a decedent was contributing to their support. Lustick v. Hall, 403 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind.Ct.App.1980). In Lustick, this court held that a jury question existed on the issue of dependency where, on the day of her death, the decedent mother was providing care and domestic services on behalf of her two minor children. Specifically, the court held that “the deceased was contributing to the support of her children in a tangible and material way which forms the basis of the pecuniary loss to her children.” Id. at 1132. The court also discussed the degree of dependency required and -stated that “[a] partial, rather than a total dependency, is sufficient to support recovery under the statute.” Id. at 1131. Employing this test, the court found that a jury could have found that a degree of partial dependency existed on behalf of the minor children. Id. at 1132.
Similarly here, I believe that a jury question exists as to whether the routine services that James provided to his parents are sufficient to make the Chamberlains “dependent next of Mn” witMn the meaning of Ind.Code 34-1-1-2. I would further note that if the Chamberlains were successful in establishing their dependent next of Mn status, they would also be entitled to recover pecuniary damages for the loss of James’s acts of love, care and affection. See Ed. Wiersma Trucking Co. v. Pfaff, 643 N.E.2d 909 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) opinion adopted at 678 N.E.2d 110 (Ind.1997). Because I believe that a factual issue exists, I would remand.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with regard to Issue III and would remand to the trial court for further action as to the claims brought by the Chamberlains as dependent next of Mn. Because I would remand for further litigation, it is unnecessary to address Issues II and IV.