Ind. Code » Title 29
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 29-1-14-12 (2025)

Trial; pleading; dismissal

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 12. (a) When any claim is transferred for trial, it shall not be necessary for the personal representative to plead any matter by way of answer, except a set-off or counter-claim, to which the plaintiff shall reply. If the personal representative pleads any other matter by way of defense, the claimant shall reply thereto; the sufficiency of the statement of the claim, or any subsequent pleading, may be tested by appropriate pleadings, and if objection be made that the assignor of a claim not assigned by endorsement is not a party to the action, leave shall be given the claimant to amend by making him a party to answer to his interest in the claim and to sue out process against the assignor to answer in that behalf. And if it shall be shown to the court that any person is bound with the decedent in any contract which is the foundation of the claim, the court shall direct that the claim be amended by making such person a defendant in the action, and process shall be issued against and served upon him, and thereafter the action shall be prosecuted against him as a codefendant with such personal representative and judgment shall be rendered accordingly.

     (b) If any claimant fails to attend and prosecute his claim at the time the same shall be set down for trial, the court shall dismiss the claim; and any subsequent prosecution of the claim against the estate shall be at the costs of the claimant, unless good cause for such failure to prosecute be shown.

Formerly: Acts 1953, c.112, s.1412. As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.132, SEC.7.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2018 · leading case: Mut. Hosp. Servs., Inc. v. Burton, 695 N.E.2d 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mut. Hosp. Servs., Inc. v. Burton, 695 N.E.2d 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “The Estate also objected to the Collection Agency’s standing to file a claim on behalf of University Hospital on the basis of Ind.Code § 29-1-14-12 which reads in pertinent part as follows: if objection be made that the assignor of a claim not assigned by endorsement is not a…”
Huff v. Huff, 895 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Maxine and Wayne’s Estate also argue that, under Ind.Code § 29-1-14-12(a), Wayne’s Estate was not required to plead the affirmative defenses of laches and estoppel before trial.”
In Re the Matter of the Trust of Barbara J. Rawlings Rex R. Rawlings v. Kim R. Rawlings, 113 N.E.3d 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Here, neither Kim nor the trial court nor the majority has identified any similar statute, either in the Probate Code (Ind.”
Ind. Code § 29-1-14-12(a): 1 case
Huff v. Huff, 895 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Maxine and Wayne’s Estate also argue that, under Ind.Code § 29-1-14-12(a), Wayne’s Estate was not required to plead the affirmative defenses of laches and estoppel before trial.”
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.