An Indiana trial court properly applied district court precedent to determine that a claim for violation of a deceased man’s constitutional rights cannot be considered an asset in his estate, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
TheIndianaLawyer.com is reporting that after Cary Owsley died from a gunshot wound in 2013, his wife, Lisa Owsley was appointed as personal representative of his estate. However, Cheryl Owsley Jackson, Cary’s sister, moved to remove Lisa as personal representative or to appoint a special administrator. The Marion Superior Court denied Jackson’s motion.
On the same day, Cary Owsley’s son, Logan Owsley filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against multiple defendants, including Bartholomew County Sheriff Mark Gorbett, coroner Larry Fisher and others, for their handling of the investigation. The defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds that Logan lacked standing and had failed to state claims on which relief could be granted.
Meanwhile, the Bartholomew Circuit Court granted a motion Owsley had filed to distribute property, approved a final accounting and determined he would inherit or receive any benefits afforded from the federal litigation. The court then discharged Lisa Owsley as personal representative and closed the estate.
A few weeks later, the Marion Superior Court appointed Logan Owsley as personal representative “for the sole purpose of managing and resolving the federal lawsuit.” Owsley then filed an amended complaint in federal court alleging wrongdoing in the investigation into his father’s death.
In response, the district court denied as moot the defendants’ motion to dismiss. However, the Marion Superior Court then determined the decision to allow the estate to be reopened to pursue the federal claim was erroneous because “(t)he claim for a violation of decedent’s constitutional rights is not an asset of the estate subject to administration.”
After his motion to correct error was denied, Owsley appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the estate. But the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that decision Tuesday.
You can read the entire article at bit.ly/2AkMLET.