Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 29-1-14-9 (2026)

Classification of claims; preferences

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Sec. 9. (a) All claims shall be classified in one (1) of the following classes. If the applicable assets of the estate are insufficient to pay all claims in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order:

(1) Costs and expenses of administration, except funeral expenses, expenses of a tombstone, and expenses incurred in the disposition of the decedent's body.

(2) Reasonable funeral expenses, expenses of a tombstone, and expenses incurred in the disposition of the decedent's body. However, in any estate in which the decedent was a recipient of public assistance under IC 12-1-1 through IC 12-1-12 (before its repeal) or any of the following, the amount of funeral expenses having priority over any claim for the recovery of public assistance shall not exceed the limitations provided for under IC 12-14-6, IC 12-14-17, and IC 12-14-21:

TANF assistance.

TANF burials.

TANF IMPACT/J.O.B.S.

Temporary Assistance to Other Needy Families (TAONF) assistance.

ARCH.

Blind relief.

Child care.

Child welfare adoption assistance.

Child welfare adoption opportunities.

Child welfare assistance.

Child welfare child care improvement.

Child welfare child abuse.

Child welfare child abuse and neglect prevention.

Child welfare children's victim advocacy program.

Child welfare foster care assistance.

Child welfare independent living.

Child welfare medical assistance to wards.

Child welfare program review action group (PRAG).

Child welfare special needs adoption.

Food Stamp administration.

Health care for indigent (HCI).

ICES.

IMPACT (food stamps).

Title IV-D (ISETS or a successor statewide automated support enforcement system).

Title IV-D child support administration.

Title IV-D child support enforcement (parent locator).

Medicaid assistance.

Medical services for inmates and patients (590).

Room and board assistance (RBA).

Refugee social service.

Refugee resettlement.

Repatriated citizens.

SSI burials and disabled examinations.

Title XIX certification.

(3) Allowances made under IC 29-1-4-1.

(4) All debts and taxes having preference under the laws of the United States.

(5) Reasonable and necessary medical expenses of the last sickness of the decedent, including compensation of persons attending the decedent.

(6) All debts and taxes having preference under the laws of this state; but no personal representative shall be required to pay any taxes on any property of the decedent unless such taxes are due and payable before possession thereof is delivered by the personal representative pursuant to the provisions of IC 29-1.

(7) All other claims allowed.

(b) No preference shall be given in the payment of any claim over any other claim of the same class, nor shall a claim due and payable be entitled to a preference over claims not due.

Formerly: Acts 1953, c.112, s.1409; Acts 1955, c.258, s.5; Acts 1965, c.371, s.1; Acts 1975, P.L.288, SEC.23. As amended by Acts 1976, P.L.125, SEC.6; Acts 1979, P.L.268, SEC.5; P.L.2-1992, SEC.788; P.L.161-2007, SEC.39; P.L.149-2012, SEC.8; P.L.99-2013, SEC.6; P.L.81-2015, SEC.17.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1976–2017 · leading case: Montgomery v. Supervised Admin. of the Est. of Montgomery, 677 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Montgomery v. Supervised Admin. of the Est. of Montgomery, 677 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “Code § 29-1-3-1, was subject to the payment of claims set forth in Ind.Code § 29-1-14-9. STANDARD OF REVIEW We agree with Montgomery that the issue involves the interpretation of various sections of the probate code.”

Est. of Daniels Ex Rel. Mercer v. Bryan, 856 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “…the application and interpretation of the statute governing the distribution of Estate assets to competing creditors. IC. § 29-1-14-9.”

Inlow v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 771 N.E.2d 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “In other words, the heirs have no right to the enjoyment or use of any Estate property until the obligations of the Estate have been met and what property remains is distributed to the heirs.”

Kitchen v. Est. of Blue, 498 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “CODE § 29-1-14-9 (1982) provides, in pertinent part: "All claims shall be classified into one (1) of the following classes.”

Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Div. v. Est. of Daugherty, 938 N.E.2d 315 (Ind. T.C. 2010). · cites it 3× “The Court disagrees with the Estate's contention that the comments to Indiana Code § 29-1-14-9 authorized all of its farming-related deductions, (see Appellee's Br.”

State Ex Rel. Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Est. of Roy, 963 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “[7] If the assets of the Estate are insufficient to pay all claims in full, Co-Personal Representatives shall make payment of FSSA's Medicaid claim pursuant to Indiana Code section 29-1-14-9. [8] A comparison of the Burns Annotated and West Annotated versions of the Indiana Code…”

Est. of Kappel v. Kappel, 946 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The Estate notes that the spousal allowance is included within the classification of claims in Indiana Code Section 29-1-14-9, which addresses “preferences” of claims, and provides in relevant part: (a) All claims shall be classified in one (1)of the following classes.”

Est. of Lammerts v. Heritage Bank & Trust Co., 663 N.E.2d 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “The argument continues that onee the claim was filed, Bank became a general creditor, and as such, its claim should have been subordinated to the costs of administration in accordance with Ind.Code § 29-1-14-9. 1 To support its position Estate cites Demma v.”

Elkhart Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Est. of Cripe, 660 N.E.2d 1062 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “Ind.Code 29-1-14-9. The preference of the Medicaid claim is provided in the priority claim statute.”

Richardson v. Richardson, 345 N.E.2d 251 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “If the applicable assets of the estate are insufficient to pay all claims and allowances in full, the personal representative shall make payment in the following order: “1.”

In the Matter of the Est. of Margaret S. Jones, John A. Jones, Jr., Pers. Rep. v. Joyce E. Schaefer, Beneficiary, & Suzanne D. VanGombos (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “[25] In Jones I, our court decided that “pursuant to I.C. § 29-1-14-9, no personal representative shall be required to pay property taxes on any property of the [D]ecedent unless the taxes are due and payable before possession thereof is delivered to the beneficiary.”

Greg Haney, as Tr. of the Revocable Trust Agreement of Jay Budman Farrar Executed October 5, 1999 v. Patricia J. Farrar, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Jay B. Farrar (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “Haney also claims that Farrar’s Will and Trusts should be read in light of Indiana Code section 29-1-14-9, which he claims is a “default rule” that requires payment of funeral and burial expenses out of Estate assets.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 29-1-14-9(a) — 1 case

Greg Haney, as Tr. of the Revocable Trust Agreement of Jay Budman Farrar Executed October 5, 1999 v. Patricia J. Farrar, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Jay B. Farrar (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Haney also claims that Farrar’s Will and Trusts should be read in light of Indiana Code section 29-1-14-9, which he claims is a “default rule” that requires payment of funeral and burial expenses out of Estate assets.”

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.