MAY, Judge.
The parties to this case, along with their brother Frank Penner, are beneficiaries of the Walter Penner Living Trust (Trust). According to the terms of the Trust, Ronald Penner became the Trustee of the Trust on Walter's death. Stanley Penner brought an action against Ronald in his capacity as Trustee, and the trial court found against Stanley on all counts. Stanley now appeals the denial of his motion to correct error and the trial court's order that he pay attorney fees to the Trust. He presents multiple issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as:
We affirm and remand.
On April 13, 2010, Walter created the Trust, named Ronald, Stanley, and Frank as beneficiaries, and named Ronald as successor trustee, with Frank to serve if Ronald was unable, and Stanley to serve if Ronald and Frank were unable. Walter died on March 30, 2011. Shortly thereafter, Ronald, Stanley, and Frank met to discuss the assets of the Trust. At that
The brothers met at Walter's house in August 2011 to work on it, but little was accomplished. At that time, Stanley indicated he planned to sue Ronald (hereinafter, "Trustee") in his capacity as trustee, and he would do so to deplete the assets of the Trust. Neither Ronald nor Frank thought Stanley was joking. In addition, Stanley also said his statement "[was] not a threat; it [was] a promise." (App. at 151.)
On December 9, 2011, Stanley filed a Petition for Trustee's Accounting, for Order to Sell Real Estate, and Related Matters, alleging Trustee had committed certain breaches of trust including failure to render an accounting, mismanagement of Trust assets, and mismanagement of the sale of Walter's residence. The trial court held a hearing on the matter on February 16, 2012, during which Stanley argued Walter's residence should be deeded to the three brothers as tenants in common. On the day of the hearing, Trustee filed a request for attorney's fees, alleging Stanley's claims were frivolous and the legal action was meant to harass. Stanley orally requested attorney's fees during the hearing.
While the case was pending, Walter's residence sold. On August 23, 2012, the trial court issued its order denying Stanley's claims and denying Stanley's oral request for attorney's fees. Stanley filed a motion to correct error on September 24; it was deemed denied on November 8, 2012. The parties appeared before the trial court on November 8 for a status conference and to present their arguments regarding attorney's fees. On December 7, Stanley filed his notice of appeal with this court. On February 1, 2013, the trial court ordered Stanley to pay $13,166.00 in attorney's fees to the Trust, and it denied Stanley's request for attorney's fees. Stanley filed an amended appeal with this court on February 28, 2013.
A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion to correct error. Volunteers of Am. v. Premier Auto Acceptance Corp., 755 N.E.2d 656, 658 (Ind.Ct. App.2001). We will reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplied the law. Id.
The trial court sua sponte entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. When the trial court enters findings sua sponte, the specific findings control only as to the issues they cover, and a general judgment standard applies to any issue on which the court has not entered findings. Scoleri v. Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d 1211, 1214-15 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). In reviewing the judgment, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings and the findings support the judgment. Id. at 1215. We will reverse only when the judgment is clearly erroneous, i.e., when it is unsupported by the findings of fact and conclusions entered on the findings. Id. For findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, the record must lack probative evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence to support them. Id. In determining the validity of the findings or judgment, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and we will not reweigh evidence or assess credibility of witnesses. Id. A general judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the evidence presented at trial. Id.
The court's primary purpose in construing a trust document is to "ascertain and give effect to the settlor's intention." Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind.2006). Indiana follows "the four corners rule" that "extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary or explain the terms of a written instrument if the terms of the instrument are susceptible of a clear and unambiguous construction." Hauck v. Second Nat'l Bank of Richmond, 153 Ind.App. 245, 259, 286 N.E.2d 852, 861 (1972), reh'g denied. Therefore, the court must give effect to a Trust's clear meaning without the use of extrinsic evidence where a Trust is capable of clear and unambiguous interpretation. See Baker, 843 N.E.2d at 532. Document language is not ambiguous simply because two parties disagree about the meaning of the language. Id. Rather, "language is ambiguous only if reasonable people could come to different conclusions as to its meaning." Id.
Regarding the Trustee's responsibility to provide an accounting to Stanley, the trial court found:
(App. at 10.) Based on that finding, the trial court concluded:
(Id. at 13-14.) Stanley argues he is entitled to an accounting despite language in the Trust relieving the Trustee of the requirement to do so. We disagree.
Section VII. D. of the Trust states, "No accountings or reports shall be required of the trustee." (Id. at 33.) While Ind.Code § 30-4-3-6(b) requires the trustee to "maintain clear and accurate accounts with respect to the trust estate" and provide access to the trust's accounting and financial records, and while Ind.Code § 30-4-5-12(a) requires the trustee provide an annual accounting of the trust, both statutory provisions indicate those requirements apply only when the terms of the trust do not provide otherwise. The language in the Trust was not ambiguous, and thus the Trust provisions override the statutes. The Trustee was not required to provide Stanley with an accounting of the Trust.
Under Ind.Code § 30-4-3-6(a), the Trustee "has a duty to administer a trust according to the terms of that trust." Stanley argues Trustee violated that duty
Stanley argues Trustee's delay in selling Walter's real estate upon his death violates the term of the trust which states: "Upon the death of the grantor, the trustee shall distribute the trust property outright to the beneficiaries named in Section V, Paragraph (A) subject to any provision in this Declaration of Trust." (App. at 32.) Under the "Specified Powers" section of the Trust:
(Id. at 31.) The trial court concluded the "Specified Powers" delineated in the Trust language were "clear and unambiguous and [gave] Trustee the full power to deal with the real estate." (Id. at 12.) The trial court noted: "Trustee is insuring the property, repairing and cleaning it and making it ready for sale in this [sic] spring." (Id.) Therefore, while Trustee was required to disburse assets of the trust upon Walter's death, he was given the power to manage those assets to the benefit of the beneficiaries pursuant to the clause which states that disbursement is "subject to any Provision in this Declaration of Trust." (Id. at 32.)
Trustee presented evidence he decided to wait to list Walter's house on the market until the real estate market improved, as to maximize the profit gained from the sale of the house, that he and one of the other beneficiaries had been working to fix up the house, and that the other beneficiary was satisfied with his management of the trust. Stanley's argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d at 1215 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence on appeal).
Ind.Code § 30-4-3-6(b)(5) requires the Trustee to "[k]eep the trust property separate from the trustee's individual property[.]" Ind.Code § 30-4-3-3(a)(10)(A) grants Trustee the power to "advance money for the benefit of the trust estate and for all expenses or losses sustained in the administration of the trust." Stanley argues Trustee committed a breach of trust when he paid bills such as Walter's medical and funeral expenses, out of his personal account, instead of out of the Trust account, and then refused Stanley's request for an accounting of the Trust. Trustee did not.
(App. at 11.) Based on that finding, the trial court concluded:
(Id. at 13-14.) We agree with the trial court. There was no evidence suggesting Trustee improperly used his personal funds for the benefit of the Trust, and the Trust language indicated an accounting of the Trust was not required. Stanley's argument is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Scoleri, 766 N.E.2d at 1215 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence on appeal).
Under Ind.Code § 30-4-3-22(a), a "beneficiary of a trust may maintain an action (1) to compel the trustee to perform his duties ... [or] (3) to compel the trustee to redress a breach of trust." Under Ind. Code § 30-4-3-22(e), if a beneficiary "successfully maintains an action under subsection (a) of this section ... he is entitled to a judgment for reasonable attorney's fees." Stanley was not successful in his claim alleging deficiencies in Trustee's performance, and thus he was not entitled to attorney's fees.
Under Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1(b):
For purposes of awarding attorney's fees under Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1(b), a claim is frivolous "if it is made primarily to harass or maliciously injure another[.]" Parks v. Madison Cty., 783 N.E.2d 711, 723 (Ind. Ct.App.2002), reh'g denied, trans. denied. A claim is "litigated in `bad faith' if the party presenting the claim is affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will." Id.
A trial court's decision to award attorney's fees pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1(b) is subject to a multi-level review. Purcell v. Old Nat. Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835, 843 (Ind.2012).
Id.
In its order awarding attorney's fees to the Trust, the trial court found:
(App. at 16-21.) Stanley asserts many of the trial court's findings are erroneous and attempts to continue his argument regarding
Even if the findings to which Stanley objects were not supported by sufficient evidence, the fact remains he made a statement to Trustee and Frank indicating his intent to drain the corpus of the Trust by filing legal actions, those legal actions were unsuccessful based on the clear language of the Trust, and Stanley continued his legal harassment regardless. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of legal fees to the Trust.
In his brief, Stanley requests appellate attorney's fees because "the probate court abused its discretion when it refused to order an accounting and found Stanley's claim frivolous[.]" (Br. of Appellant at 28.) As noted in previous sections of this opinion, the trial court did not err in its decision regarding the Trustee's management of the Trust, its award of attorney's fees to the Trust, or its denial of attorney's fees to Stanley. Accordingly, we deny Stanley's request for appellate attorney's fees.
However, under Appellate Rule 67, we may sua sponte award appellate attorney's fees in the event an appeal is "permeated with meritlessness, bad faith, frivolity, harassment, vexatiousness, or purpose of delay." GEICO v. Rowell, 705 N.E.2d 476, 483 n. 12 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), reh'g denied. As noted above, Stanley's arguments, at the trial court and on appeal, are groundless and frivolous based on the controlling statutes and the plain language of the Trust. One of the most egregious of these is Stanley's assertion that he was entitled to attorney's fees at the trial court level based on Ind.Code § 30-4-3-22(e), which grants attorney's fees to a beneficiary who is successful in a claim to enforce the terms of the Trust. There is no ambiguity — the trial court's order clearly indicates Stanley was unsuccessful in his action to enforce what he claimed to be the terms of the Trust. His request for attorney's fees at the trial court, as well as the appellate level, is ridiculous.
In addition, Stanley failed to comply with many of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. First, he did not include a table of contents in his Appendix as required by App. R. 50(C). In a case with the multitude of filings such as the instant case, the absence of a table of contents severely hinders the review of the appeal. In addition, Stanley's Statement of Facts is rife with argument, which is not permitted under App. R. 46(A)(6). See also Wright v. Elston, 701 N.E.2d 1227, 1230 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) ("A Statement of Facts should be a concise narrative of the facts stated in a light most favorable to the judgment, [sic] and should not be argumentative."), trans. denied. We recognize that, taken alone, none of these violations or arguments would rise to the level of appellate sanctions; however, taken together, they are an unnecessary drain on judicial resources. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for computation and award of appellate attorney's fees to the Trust.
The trial court did not err in its findings and conclusions of law regarding Trustee's management of the Trust. Further, the
Affirmed and remanded.
KIRSCH, J. and BAILEY, J., concur.
