Background
Larry Davis executed a self-proved will in December 2020 leaving his estate to his fiancée, Michelle Tressler, and excluding his three adult children unless Tressler died first. After his 2022 death, daughter Stacia Davis contested the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, improper execution, undue influence, duress, and fraud. The probate court later removed Tressler as personal representative and appointed attorney Robert York as special administrator after delays in estate administration.
At a bench trial, both attesting witnesses confirmed their signatures, although neither remembered the details of signing. Davis offered an affidavit purportedly from one witness stating that she had not attested the will, but Davis did not know its source and the witness denied signing it. The court excluded hospital records and a beneficiary confirmation as hearsay. It upheld the will, found Davis not credible, characterized the affidavit as fraudulent, and concluded that she had continued litigating after its falsity became apparent. Citing a lengthy and unproductive discovery fight and other bad-faith conduct, the court ordered Davis to pay $22,208.18 of York’s fees.
Proceeding without counsel on appeal, Davis relied on documents never admitted below, omitted required record materials, and supplied no proper record citations. Her briefs also cited purported decisions that did not exist and real cases unrelated to the propositions asserted. York sought dismissal and appellate attorney fees. Although the notice of appeal’s timeliness was unclear, the panel exercised its authority to reach the fully briefed merits.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the will’s validity. Judge May explained that an Indiana contestant bears the burden to prove a probated will invalid. Because Davis had lost on that issue at trial, she appealed from a negative judgment and could prevail only by showing that the evidence led unerringly to the opposite conclusion. The court would not reweigh testimony or consider documents outside the admitted record. The self-proving clause created a rebuttable presumption of proper execution, both witnesses authenticated their signatures, and Davis presented no admissible evidence establishing incapacity, defective execution, or undue influence.
The panel also affirmed the trial-level fee award. Indiana generally follows the American Rule, but a court has inherent authority to shift fees when a party acts in bad faith through oppressive, obdurate, or obstreperous conduct. The detailed findings supported that standard: Davis used a fraudulent document, continued a meritless contest, made grave accusations without proof, and drove unnecessary discovery that increased the estate’s expense. The probate court reviewed York’s billing, considered reasonableness and ability to pay, and limited Davis’s responsibility to fees attributable to her conduct.
Finally, the panel granted York appellate fees under Appellate Rule 66(E) and remanded for the trial court to set the amount. That remedy is reserved for circumstances where an appeal is permeated with meritlessness, bad faith, frivolity, harassment, or delay. Davis’s appendix and briefing forced York and the court to reconstruct the record, while her substantive arguments depended on excluded material, fabricated citations, and irrelevant authorities. Her self-represented status did not excuse compliance because Indiana holds pro se litigants to the same procedural standards as attorneys.
Key Takeaways
- A self-proved Indiana will carries a rebuttable presumption of proper execution, and the contestant must overcome it with admissible evidence.
- An appellate appendix cannot enlarge the trial record; materials never admitted below cannot support reversal.
- Trial courts may shift fees for bad-faith, oppressive, obdurate, or obstreperous litigation after making findings tying the expense to that conduct.
- Fabricated or irrelevant authorities, missing record citations, and reliance on extra-record evidence can justify appellate fees even when the court elects to decide the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision gives Indiana probate practitioners a stark illustration of litigation conduct that can move a will contest beyond ordinary defeat and into fee-shifting territory. Counsel should test evidence for admissibility and authenticity before alleging incapacity, fraud, or undue influence, and should reassess the case when a key document is disavowed. Special administrators seeking fees should submit detailed time records and connect requested amounts to the opponent’s conduct.
For appellate lawyers, Davis is also a record-discipline warning. Courts prefer merits decisions, but that preference does not make excluded documents usable or insulate a party from Rule 66(E). Every factual assertion should map to the admitted record, every authority should be verified, and every fee request should explain how procedural and substantive defects created needless expense.