IN RE: Unsupervised ESTATE OF Rebecca A. CURLESS (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Rebecca Curless died in October of 2021. Since that time, David Reid, Todd Reid, and Heather Reid have engaged in numerous lawsuits relating to Curless's estate and will. This is the third appeal involving the parties. In this appeal, Todd and Heather challenge the denial of their petition to enforce the no-contest provision of Curless's will. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts, as presented in the parties’ prior appeals, indicate the following:

David and Todd are brothers; their mother was Rebecca Curless; and Todd is married to Heather. At some point before she died, Curless appointed Heather to be her attorney in fact. In September 2021, the trial court appointed Todd to serve as guardian over Curless's person and her estate. Later, Heather, purportedly using her power of attorney, transferred title in Curless's real property located at 208 N. Line Street in Columbia City to herself and Todd. Heather also transferred title in Curless's vehicle, boat, and other personal property to herself and Todd.

On October 4, Curless died testate. David was the primary beneficiary of the will. Curless's bequests included $1 million to David and $250,000 to Heather. If there was any money left after those distributions, Todd was to receive up to $100,000. Curless's will also purported to leave to David the Line Street property, which had been transferred to Heather and Todd before Curless's death. Finally, David was named the residual heir in Curless's will.

David served as a co-personal representative of Curless's estate along with Stanley Sickafoose. On April 28, 2022, David and Sickafoose filed their verified closing statement, whereby they swore that they had collected all of the assets of the estate and had paid all claims and expenses of administration. The probate court approved the closing statement on July 29.

More than a year later, on September 21, 2023, David filed a nine-count complaint against Todd and Heather. Among David's claims were allegations that Heather had violated her fiduciary duty to Curless and that Todd and Heather had committed conversion when they transferred title to the Line Street property to themselves before Curless's death.

On November 13, Todd and Heather filed a motion to dismiss David's complaint under Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Todd and Heather argued that David lacked standing to assert his claims․

The trial court granted Todd and Heather's motion to dismiss David's complaint without a hearing. David filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

Reid v. Reid, 2024 WL 3272313 *1–2 (Ind. Ct. App. July 2, 2024) (footnotes omitted) (“Reid I”). We affirmed the judgment of the trial court on appeal. Id. at *4.

[3] David moved to reopen Curless's estate and, on October 29, 2024, over Todd and Heather's objections, the trial court granted David's request and re-appointed him to serve as personal representative of the estate. Est. of Curless Through Reid v. Reid, 2025 WL 3552845, at *1 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2025) (“Reid II”).

David, in his capacity as representative of the [e]state, then filed suit against Todd and Heather (the “Estate case”), alleging that Heather had breached her fiduciary duties, had committed criminal conversion, and had acted in bad faith in transferring the Line Street property to herself and Todd.

On February 20, 2025, Todd and Heather moved to dismiss the Estate case, arguing that the [e]state's claims were time-barred and that, with respect to certain annuities, the [e]state had failed to state a claim for which it could be granted relief. The trial court, over the [e]state's objection, issued an order dismissing the Estate case on April 3, 2025.

Id. at *1–2. We again affirmed the judgment of the trial court on appeal, on December 11, 2025. Id. at *4.

[4] Meanwhile, on June 17, 2025, Todd and Heather had petitioned to enforce the no-contest provision of Curless's will. In doing so, Todd and Heather alleged that

David's improper and unsuccessful attempt to seize Todd and Heather's inheritances for himself was unquestionably an attempt to defeat the testamentary intentions expressed in [Curless's w]ill. By initiating his lawsuit and ultimately losing that lawsuit, David triggered the operation of the no contest provision.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 90. Todd and Heather argued that “the property received by David should be distributed to Rebecca's granddaughter, Hannah M. Reid, the alternative residual beneficiary of the Estate.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 90. On September 23, 2025, the trial court denied Todd and Heather's petition, finding that

4. There was no formal contest of the will filed by anyone. The lawsuit filed by David did not “contest the admissibility or validity of [the] Will,” nor did it ask to “set aside a term of the will,” nor was it an attempt to “defeat [the] intentions as expressed in [the] Will.” Instead, the suit questioned whether the fiduciary duty owed by the guardian was violated and/or whether the Decedent's property was converted.

5. The Court finds that David Reid did not violate Article Eight of the Decedent's will.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 15 (brackets in original).

Discussion and Decision

[5] The interpretation, construction, or legal effect of a will is a question to be determined by the court as a matter of law. In construing the language of a will, our primary focus is upon the intent of the testator. We look to the four corners of the will and the language used in the instrument in determining the testator's intent. Also, the will in all its parts must be considered together. When construing the language of a will, the court should strive to give effect to every provision, clause, term, or word if possible.

Carlson v. Sweeney, Dabagia, Donoghue, Thorne, Janes & Pagos, 895 N.E.2d 1191, 1197 (Ind. 2008) (internal citations omitted).

[6] Todd and Heather contend that the trial court erred in denying their petition to enforce the no-contest provision found in Curless's will. A no-contest provision of a will

refers to a provision of a will that, if given effect, would reduce or eliminate the interest of a beneficiary of the will who, directly or indirectly, initiates or otherwise pursues:

(A) an action to contest the admissibility or validity of the will;

(B) an action to set aside a term of the will; or

(C) any other act to frustrate or defeat the testator's intent as expressed in the terms of the will.

Ind. Code § 29-1-1-3(25). “[A] no[-]contest provision is enforceable according to the express terms of the no contest provision.”¹ Ind. Code § 29-1-6-2(a).

[7] Article Eight of Curless's will provides that

If any recipient under this Will files an action to contest the admissibility or validity of this Will, an action to set aside a term of this Will or otherwise attempts to defeat my intentions as expressed in my Will, that person will take nothing from my estate or from any trust that I may have created.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 27. Todd and Heather assert that David's initial lawsuit (described in Reid I) violated the no-contest clause of Curless's will because it included an attempt to divest them of their inheritance under the will. For his part, David asserts that his underlying lawsuits (described in Reid I and Reid II) did not contest Curless's will but rather alleged wrongdoing by Todd and Heather prior to Curless's death that resulted in a transfer of certain property in a manner that he claims was inconsistent with Curless's testamentary intent. Specifically, Count VII of David's complaint in Reid I alleged that Heather, in her capacity as Curless's representative prior to Curless's death, had taken actions inconsistent with Curless's “testamentary scheme,” and, as a result, Todd and Heather's inheritance under Curless's will “should be forfeited and returned to [David] as the sole residual distributee.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 102. Todd and Heather claim that by attempting to have their inheritance forfeited in Reid I, David violated the above-quoted no-contest clause.

[8] The no-contest provision of Curless's will indicates that an individual forfeits their inheritance under the will if the individual (1) files an action to contest the admissibility or validity of the will, (2) files an action to set aside a term of the will, or (3) otherwise attempts to defeat Curless's intentions as expressed in the will. David's lawsuits did not contest the admissibility or validity of Curless's will or seek to set aside a term of the will. Likewise, neither of the lawsuits directly attempted to defeat Curless's testamentary intentions. Although David argued in his first lawsuit that Todd and Heather should be found to have forfeited their interests in the will, his argument was premised on Todd and Heather's alleged wrongdoing prior to Curless's death. We agree with the trial court that neither of David's unsuccessful lawsuits can be accurately described as a will-contest action.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Indiana Code section 29-1-6-2(b) sets forth seven situations when a no-contest provision is not enforceable. However, none of the situations apply to the instant matter.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.