University of Southern Indiana Foundation v. Baker

843 N.E.2d 528 (2006)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

University of Southern Indiana Foundation v. Baker

Indiana Supreme Court
843 N.E.2d 528 (2006)

Facts

Marian Boelson created a trust that included several specific grants of property upon Boelson’s death. Boelson’s brother, Richard Baker (plaintiff) was granted Boelson’s Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) as well as all of her automobiles, furnishings, and other personal property. Boelson’s friend, Faye Rucks, was granted $10,000, subordinate to the payment of the trust’s administrative expenses. The trust granted the residue of Boelson’s estate to the University of Southern Indiana Foundation (the foundation) (defendant). At her death, Boelson owned a condominium containing furniture and personal effects, a one-acre lot, an automobile, bank accounts, two IRAs, and other investments. Baker argued that he was entitled to all of Boelson’s personal property, including her bank accounts and investments, and that the foundation was entitled only to Boelson’s real estate. The foundation argued that Baker was entitled only to Boelson’s IRAs, her automobile, and the furniture and personal effects contained in her condominium. The foundation further argued that it was entitled to all of Boelson’s other real and personal property, including her bank accounts and investments. In support of its argument, the foundation submitted extrinsic evidence, including witness affidavits and notes written by Boelson. All of the extrinsic evidence supported the foundation’s argument that Boelson intended to grant Baker only her IRAs, automobile, and personal effects. The probate court agreed with the foundation that, based on the extrinsic evidence, Boelson intended to limit Baker’s inheritance. However, the probate court also found that the language of the trust unambiguously devised all of Boelson’s personal property to Baker, preventing the court from giving effect to Boelson’s intent. The court therefore ruled that Baker was entitled to all of Boelson’s tangible and intangible personal property and the foundation was entitled only to Boelson’s real property. The court of appeals affirmed, and the foundation appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boehm, 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 832,000 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 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 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