IBJNews

Inlow heirs accuse Fifth Third, Hall Render of fraud

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bitter battle between the heirs of former Conseco Inc. executive Lawrence Inlow and the bank and attorneys overseeing his estate will get a hearing Friday in Hamilton County Court.

The Inlow children and their attorneys say they’re being defrauded by Fifth Third Bank, the fiduciary of the estate, and its law firm, Indianapolis-based Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C., “who strive endlessly to drain the Estate of every last dime,” according to a petition filed in June.

According to that document, Fifth Third has paid itself and Hall Render about $1.5 million in fees since Fifth Third was selected by the Inlow children in 2000. Hall Render has filed petitions claiming it is owed another $760,873 for work performed since 2004.

But the Inlows and their law firm, Indianapolis-based Frank & Kraft, have challenged the release of those funds for six years. Marvin Frank, one of the attorneys that represents Jason, Jeremy and Sarah Inlow, declined to comment.

Inlow was chief counsel for Carmel-based Conseco when he was killed by a helicopter rotor in a 1997 accident. His estate was valued at $180 million when he died, and the heirs all received distributions of money following an April 2004 agreement. The Inlows now believe only $600,000 remains in the estate—less than the fees sought by Hall Render.

But Hall Render attorney David Honig said the fault lies with the Inlows and their lawyers, who have filed a string of legal actions against Fifth Third while at the same time refusing to pay.

“Other than fee petitions, neither Hall Render or Fifth Third have initiated any of the litigation that has extended this case for the past three years,” Honig said in an interview.

At the 9 a.m. hearing Friday before Judge Steve Nation, Honig plans to argue that the Inlows’ latest claims have already been decided by a December ruling in Marion County Court, where legal issues about the Inlow heirs’ trusts were decided.

On Dec. 31, 2009, Judge Tanya Pratt ruled that some of Hall Render’s disputed legal work was legitimate and deserved reimbursement.

“We do not like being accused of theft and fraud, particularly when those accusations have been heard in open court and found to be false,” Honig said.

The Inlow heirs and Frank & Kraft have been formally trying to remove Fifth Third as the estate’s representative since April 2009, according to documents that had been under seal in Hamilton County Court.

They argued that Fifth Third had failed to post a required bond and had become a different company after it merged with other banks following its selection by the Inlows. Those arguments were rejected by Nation last year.

But before they were, the Inlows filed a new claim, saying that Fifth Third had proved itself unsuitable as a fiduciary of the estate because it failed to file proper accounting of the estate’s assets and had obtained fees under false pretenses.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Too Easy
    Read, investigate, learn the facts before you speak. Not all attorneys are ruthless.
  • Bad Name
    90% of lawyers give the other 10% a bad name!
    • so sad
      I hate to read about the Inlow family going through this. Larry was a kind man, and I always liked their family.
    • agreed
      I was with 5/3 several years ago and had VERY unsatisfactory experience with their managers...been with Old National for awhile and they've benn great so far! these outside banks and attorneys' will suck the life and $$$ out of you, just as they did to my family's business years ago, like greedy vultures!
    • Agree with Tony...
      Local banks are the way to go...
    • 53rd is the worst bank
      Switch to credit unions or locally owned banks-Ditch any bank that is publicly traded!!!

      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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

      2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

      3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

      4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

      5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

      ADVERTISEMENT