# Nobbe v. Nobbe

> Indiana Court of Appeals · July 28, 2005 · 831 N.E.2d 835

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743006

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Trust Under the Last Will and Testament of Edwin NOBBE, Deceased, Petitioner, Herman Nobbe, Susan Nobbe Munson and Marlene Nobbe Meyer, Appellants, v. Walter J. Nobbe, Delores E. Young, Robert A. Nobbe, Eugene O. Nobbe, Betty Nobbe and Leon W. Nobbe, Appellees (Respondents)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 831 N.E.2d 835; 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 1364; 2005 WL 1774050
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robb
- **Judges:** Friedlander, Mathias, Robb
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743006

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that because the decedent’s will did not provide otherwise, the appellants were entitled to any accretion in the stock at the point of sale or, if the stock was not sold, at the time of the trust’s termination

## Opinion text

ROBB, Judge,
dissents with opinion.
I respectfully dissent. I do not disagree with the majority's premise that the Will establishes a specific bequest of stock to the Appellants and that unless otherwise expressed in or implied from the Will, appreciation or loss in the value of stock belong to the principal. See op. at 840, 841. However, I do disagree that "under the plain language of the Will, Appellants are entitled to any accretion in the stock at the point of sale or, if the stock was not sold, at the time of the Trust's termination." Id. at 841.
I do not believe that "equivalent value in cash" means the value of the stock at the time the distribution of the trust corpus is made. It appears that Edwin believed the trust could last for a considerable length of time, as his surviving wife was the lifetime income beneficiary of the trust. Any number of things could have happened to the stock during the administration of the trust. The stock could have decreased in value, the stock could have been sold and some of the proceeds used for the maintenance and support of Loretta, or, as did in fact happen, the stock could have increased in value. If the stock had been sold during the administration of the trust, the Appellants would not necessarily have received the cash immediately. When the trust was distributed, would they receive only the value of the stock when it was sold or would they also be entitled to receive the interest on the proceeds that remained in the trust? What about any portion of the proceeds that had been used for Loretta's maintenance and support? If the stock had become worthless, would the Appellants be entitled to nothing from the estate when the trust was distributed? If "equivalent value in cash" means anything other than value of the stock at the time of Edwin's death, the vagaries of time and value make the meaning too uncertain. I would therefore hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the Appellees and affirm the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743006. Public record. Not legal advice.