Legal Opinion · Dissent

Funk v. Funk

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided November 27, 1990No. 79A02-9004-CV-208Published

1DissentStaton, Judge

I dissent from the Majority for two reasons. First, the doctrine of equitable conversion is applicable. Second, the testator’s state of mind as it relates to his intent to sell the farm is a question of fact; summary judgment should not have been granted. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court granted summary judgment based upon these findings:

2. That there is no evidence of any intent by decedent before his death to sell the real estate described in plaintiffs[’] complaint on land contract.

3. That to apply the doctrine of equitable conversion would ignore and defeat…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State Ex Rel. Hatcher v. Lake Superior Court, Room ThreeIndiana Supreme Court · 1986
  3. NY Cent. RR Co. v. Pub. Ser. Comm. of Ind.Indiana Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Farmers State BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API