IBJNews

Appeals court: Eiteljorg estate trustees breached duties

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Trustees for the estate of deceased Indianapolis businessman Harrison Eiteljorg breached their duty to distribute more than $1 million from his trust, a panel of state appellate court judges ruled Monday.

The judges affirmed an earlier decision from the Marion Superior Court, which determined the trustees should have distributed $1.2 million in October 2004 to Eiteljorg’s sons, Harrison Eiteljorg II and Jack Eiteljorg. The trustees distributed the money the next year, after being ordered to by a court.

Harrison Eiteljorg founded the Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians and Western Art in downtown Indianapolis in 1989.

Trustees for his estate are Eiteljorg’s stepson, Roger Eiteljorg, and accountant John Lienhart. The trustees were appealing rulings by judges Charles Dieter and Tanya Walton Pratt in 2005, claiming they erred in finding a breach of duty and in assessing damages and attorneys'  fees.

Two of the three appellate judges on the panel affirmed Pratt’s decision, while one dissented.

Harrison Eiteljorg died in 1997 and named his second wife, Sonja, as sole beneficiary. She died in July 2003. At the time, the assets of the Eiteljorg trust totaled about $6.5 million, including $3.2 million in liquid assets, according to court documents.

The two Eiteljorg sons requested a distribution in October 2004 of $2 million, which Lienhart considered excessive because the trust may have owed as much as $2 million in additional taxes, the documents said.

Instead, Lienhart and Roger Eiteljorg countered by offering a total of $1 million.

Following failed attempts at negotiating, the brothers petitioned the court in January 2005 to remove Lienhart and Roger Eiteljorg as trustees, and later raised 13 claims of breach of trust.

Judge Charles Dieter issued an order denying their removal as trustees but required an immediate distribution of $1.5 million. In July 2005, the trustees complied by distributing $1.2 million in cash, in addition to non-liquid assets, according to court documents.

Dieter also determined that the trustees breached their duty by failing to promptly distribute the assets, but the judge found them not liable on the 11 remaining breach of trust claims.

Judge Dieter found the trustees breached their duties, but died before ruling on damages. Pratt took over the case and concluded that $1.2 million should have been distributed at an October 2004 meeting.

“The bottom line is that [trustees] John and Roger, in violation of the explicit terms of the trust agreement, and knowing that the property was available, did not distribute $1 million in trust assets or seek guidance from the courts for at least six months following the October meeting,” the judges wrote in supporting Pratt.

Pratt also awarded Harrison Eiteljorg II $156,701 in lost earnings from investments he planned to make with the money from the trust and awarded Jack Eiteljorg $112,046 in lost profits from a missed real estate deal. In addition, she awarded the two $353,612 in attorney’s fees.

But the panel of judges in the appeal said the brothers are only entitled to interest on their withheld distributions and found the damages awarded by Pratt to be “erroneous.”

The appellate judges also found the attorney’s fees to be excessive and concluded a fee of $150,000 to be more appropriate.

The appellate judges remanded the awarding of compensatory damages and attorney’s fees back to the trial court.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, let me say that I love the idea of communities being self-sufficient and people in the community not needing cars, living, working and shopping all in their neighborhood. To sum it up; I love good urban planning and hate urban sprawl. However, there are two reasons that I am against this development. First, this building doesn't fit. Density can occur in Ripple by building up top the street and better use of land. The scale of this project should be downtown. Secondly, I would be willing to bet that if a whole foods in Ripple is built, the Nora store would be closed. Here's my reasoning. The Nora Whole Foods expansion plans have been put on hold. I'm guessing they are waiting to see what happens with the Ripple proposal. Communities next to each other should work together to end sprawl and not work against each other and take other neighbors assets. Develop something both communities can be proud of and will attract more development and density. There's my soap box for the day.

  2. My apologies, Lou - it was the Indy Star that printed cost for entertaining "celebrities" during Indy 500. Sorry for confusing the always timely IBJ with Indy's Gannett reprint news source.

  3. That's fine if you want a grocery store that has festivals and live music. I guess with the prices they charge, they can afford to host such activities. As for me, I choose to spend my money more wisely and if I want to go to a festival or a concert, I will pay for that separately - not through my grocery bill.

  4. TIF is not just to attract development but to attract a higher use for that development. Carmel wisely is using TIF for numerous public parking garages. Asphalt seas of parking pay little taxes and bring even less value to a commercial area. Also density is what is going to save Indy and Broad Ripple. The days of trying to compete with burbs are long gone.

  5. The Prestige was an awesome movie.

ADVERTISEMENT