Ind. Code » Title 29
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 29-1-7-20 (2026)

Contest of wills; burden of proof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 20. In a suit:

(1) objecting to the probate of a will under section 16 of this chapter; or

(2) testing the validity of a will after probate under section 17 of this chapter;

the burden of proof is upon the contestor.

Formerly: Acts 1953, c.112, s.720. As amended by Acts 1982, P.L.171, SEC.24; P.L.94-1989, SEC.3; P.L.86-2018, SEC.210.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Callaway v. Callaway, 932 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Callaway v. Callaway, 932 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 29-1-7-20. A party appealing a judgment who carried the burden of proof at trial, and lost, appeals from a negative judgment.”
Est. of Fowler v. Perry, 681 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “CODE § 29-1-7-20. However, the contestor is aided by the presumption of destruction with the intent to revoke.”
Fitch v. Maesch, 690 N.E.2d 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 29-1-7-20. As Fitch is appealing a negative judgment, the judgment of the trial court will only be reversed if it is contrary to law.”
Munster v. Marcrum, 393 N.E.2d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). “Ind.Code 29-1-7-20: “In any suit to resist the probate, or to test the validity of any will after probate, as provided in section 717 [29-1-7-17] of this Code, the burden of proof shall be on the contestor.”
Christal Trowbridge v. The Est. of Everett Thomas Trowbridge, & Michael T. Trowbridge, No. 19A-ES-265 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2019). · cites it 6× “Ind. Code § 29-1-7-20 . However, the contestor is aided by the presumption of destruction with the intent to revoke.”
Daniel E. Norris v. The Supervised Est. of Martha A. Norris, (mem. dec.), No. 40A04-1506-ES-631 (Ind. Ct. App. May 6, 2016). · cites it 2× “After a bench trial the court found the will valid and enforceable.”
In the Matter of The Supervised Est. of Gary L. Steinmetz, With Pers. Rep.: Ruth Steinmetz v. Daryl Steinmetz (mem. dec.), 121 N.E.3d 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “[10] The parties agree that Daryl, as the opponent of the document, had the burden of proving that the February 2015 document was not a valid will.”
Mary Eve Kassen Moriarty v. Catherine C. Moriarty & Paula A. Bowers, 150 N.E.3d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 29-1-7-20 . Thus, Daughters bore the burden of proof on the issues they raised: that the Purported Will is invalid because William lacked the mental capacity to execute it and/or that it was a product of Eve’s undue influence over William.”
In re the Est. of Joyce Hunter Jeffrey Barnes v. Dawn Renee Hunter, & Regina McKinney (mem. dec.), No. 08A02-1404-ES-273 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015). · cites it 2× “) Under Ind. Code § 29-1-7-20 , the “burden of proof is upon the contestor” who objects to the probate of a will.”
Scott Alan Stibbins, individually & as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Warren E. Stibbins, & Tr. of the Warren E. Stibbins Revocable Trust v. Carol (Stibbins) Pagano Foster, No. 18A02-1410-PL-750 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2015). · cites it 2× “[27] Indiana Code section 29-1-7-20 provides that a person challenging a will admitted to probate bears the burden of proof.”
Stibbins v. Foster, 45 N.E.3d 419 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “[27] Indiana Code section 29-1-7-20 provides that a person challenging a will admitted to probate bears the burden of proof.”
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.