Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 29-1-1-10 (2026)

Notice of filings; objections or answers

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 10. Where, pursuant to law, order of court, or the request of the moving party, notice of the filing of any report, account, claim, petition, motion or other pleading to interested persons is required before submission of the same to the court, any interested person, on or before the day set for hearing, may file written objections or answers thereto, and, upon special order or general rule of the court, objections or answers thereto must be filed in writing as a prerequisite of being heard by the court.

Formerly: Acts 1953, c.112, s.110.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Diaz v. Duncan, 406 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Diaz v. Duncan, 406 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “They are: Ind.Code 29-1-1-10: “Where, pursuant to law, order of court, or the request of the moving party, notice of the filing of any report, account, claim, petition, motion or other pleading to interested persons is required before submission of the same to the court, any…”

Nancy Richardson v. Susan Thieme, 76 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 29-1-1-10, which is a general provision apparently applicable to both unsupervised and supervised estates, states that any objections to estate filings or answers thereto “must be filed in writing as a prerequisite of being heard by the court.”

Avery v. Avery, 932 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “Still, the Averys maintain that Indiana Code Section 29-1-1-10 applies and explicitly makes an answer optional.”

Ditto v. Martin, 557 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “We do not believe the provisions of either Ind.Code 29-1-1-10 or Ind.Code 29-1- *1358 16-7 prohibit the probate judge from resetting a hearing on the personal representative’s final account and proposed distribution nor, for that matter, did the failure to file specific written…”

Butler Univ. v. Est. of Verdak, 815 N.E.2d 185 (2004). “See Ind.Code § 29-1-1-10 (1999). 3 . Dindonis argues that Butler's October 3, 2002 objection was nothing more than a motion to reconsider.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.