Estate of Estridge v. Taylor

187 N.E.3d 275 (2022)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Estate of Estridge v. Taylor

Indiana Court of Appeals
187 N.E.3d 275 (2022)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Michael Estridge and Lana Taylor (defendant) were both firefighters and paramedics who met in 2011 while they worked at the same fire station. In 2015, Estridge was diagnosed with cancer. In 2016, the couple began dating, and in 2017 the relationship became sexual. In early 2018, Estridge proposed marriage, and Taylor accepted. No wedding date was set. The couple decided not to tell their families because Estridge was much older than Taylor, but their friends and coworkers knew. Meanwhile, despite Estridge’s cancer treatments, the cancer reached a terminal stage. By May 1, 2019, Estridge had been informed by a Chicago hospital that the cancer could not be stopped and that his best option was home palliative care. Estridge was discharged with prescribed pain medication to keep his pain level under control; his palliative-care physician observed that Estridge was alert and able to make complicated decisions. Taylor and two firefighter friends rode with Estridge to Indianapolis. Along the way, Estridge said he wanted to marry Taylor. Estridge talked and laughed with his friends. The couple signed appropriate documents for a marriage license and to designate Taylor as Estridge’s beneficiary for his firefighter’s pension. On May 2, 2019, around 4:30 p.m., Taylor and Estridge married in front of a group of firefighter friends. The firefighter chief presided over the ceremony. The day after the ceremony, Estridge signed a Medicaid form electing hospice; on the form, it was noted with the consent of Estridge’s children that Estridge was “alert to self.” On May 6, 2019, Estridge died. Thereafter, Estridge’s estate (the estate) (plaintiff) filed a petition to annul the marriage based on Estridge’s alleged incompetency to enter the marriage. At trial, the estate’s expert, Dr. McCoy, opined that he did not have sufficient information to assess whether Estridge’s pain medication had rendered him incompetent. Taylor and two firefighter friends testified regarding Estridge’s interactions with them and others during the ride to Indianapolis and during the marriage ceremony. Taylor’s expert, Dr. Rodgers, had reviewed the lay deposition testimony and Estridge’s medical records and opined that Estridge’s pain medication had not rendered him incompetent. The trial court denied the petition to annul the marriage, and the estate appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership