IBJNews

Appeals court: Eiteljorg estate trustees breached duties

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT