Ind. Code » Title 30
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4 (2026)

Records of transactions; accounting

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

     Sec. 4. (a) The attorney in fact shall keep complete records of all transactions entered into by the attorney in fact on behalf of the principal:

(1) for six (6) years after the date of the transaction; or

(2) until the records are delivered to the successor attorney in fact;

whichever occurs first.

     (b) Except as otherwise:

(1) stated in the power of attorney; or

(2) required by subsection (c);

the attorney in fact is not required to render an accounting.

     (c) Except as provided in subsection (f), the attorney in fact shall render a written accounting if an accounting is ordered by a court or requested by:

(1) the principal;

(2) a guardian appointed for the principal;

(3) a child of the principal, unless a court finds that such a rendering is not in the best interests of the principal;

(4) a person who jointly owns an account with the principal; or

(5) upon the death of the principal, the personal representative of the principal's estate or an heir or legatee of the principal.

     (d) Except as provided in subsection (f), an attorney in fact shall deliver an accounting requested under subsection (c) to:

(1) the principal;

(2) a guardian appointed for the principal;

(3) the personal representative of the principal's estate;

(4) a person who jointly owns an account with the principal;

(5) an heir of the principal after the death of the principal;

(6) a legatee of the principal after the death of the principal; or

(7) a child of the principal, unless a court finds that such a delivery is not in the best interests of the principal.

     (e) Except as provided in subsection (f)(2), an attorney in fact shall deliver an accounting ordered or requested under subsection (c) to the court or the person requesting the accounting not later than sixty (60) days after the date the attorney in fact receives the court order or written request for an accounting.

     (f) In the case of a principal who has died, the following apply:

(1) The court may order an accounting under subsection (c) at any time.

(2) In the absence of a court ordered accounting, an attorney in fact is not required to deliver an accounting to a person described in subsection (d)(2) through (d)(7) unless the person requests the accounting not later than nine (9) months after the date of the principal's death.

(3) The delivery deadline set forth in subsection (e) applies to a written request for an accounting that is timely submitted under subdivision (2).

     (g) Not more than one (1) accounting is required under this section in each twelve (12) month period unless the court, in its discretion, orders additional accountings.

     (h) If an attorney in fact fails to deliver an accounting as required under this section, the person requesting the accounting may initiate an action in mandamus to compel the attorney in fact to render the accounting. The court may award the attorney's fees and court costs incurred under this subsection to the person requesting the accounting if the court finds that the attorney in fact failed to render an accounting as required under this section without just cause.

As added by P.L.149-1991, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.77-1998, SEC.1; P.L.252-2001, SEC.35; P.L.165-2002, SEC.8; P.L.42-2012, SEC.1; P.L.51-2014, SEC.29; P.L.151-2019, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2002–2018 · leading case: In the Matter of the Guardianship of Natalie N. Stant Adult, Jeffrey Stant v. William Stant & Natalie Stant, 50 N.E.3d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Natalie N. Stant Adult, Jeffrey Stant v. William Stant & Natalie Stant, 50 N.E.3d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 28× “In this interlocutory appeal, Jeffrey raises the following consolidated and restated issue: whether thé trial court erred when it construed Indiana Code section 30-5-6-4 to apply only to powers of attorney created after July 1, 2012 and held that Jeffery was not entitled *150 to…”
Matter of the Est. of Harry L. Rickert, 934 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 30-5-6-4(b) (2004). Because Baker was herself a joint owner of CDs that had been established by Rickert, she requested that the trial court appoint a special personal representative to investigate whether the joint accounts should be recovered for the Estate.”
WW Extended Care, Inc. v. Swinkunas, 764 N.E.2d 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “" See I.C. § 30-5-6-4(a). However, the attorney-in-fact is not required to render a written accounting with respect to those transactions unless ordered to do so by a court or requested to do so by certain statutorily authorized parties See I.”
Miller v. Miller, 935 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Code § 30-4-3-22(8) (providing that a beneficiary who successfully maintains an action for breach of trust is entitled to attorney fees); Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4 .5(c) (providing that an AIF that is found to have breached his fiduciary duties to the principal may be responsible for…”
In the Matter of Thomas E. Q. Williams, 971 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 8× “See Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4 . Counsel retained by L.”
Melvin Morris v. Robert Dawson (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “[5] On February 7, 2013, Dawson filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, claiming that Morris’ accounting claim was time-barred pursuant to Indiana Code section 30-5-6-4 (providing that an attorney-in-fact shall keep complete records of all transactions entered into by the…”
Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4(a): 1 case
WW Extended Care, Inc. v. Swinkunas, 764 N.E.2d 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" See I.C. § 30-5-6-4(a). However, the attorney-in-fact is not required to render a written accounting with respect to those transactions unless ordered to do so by a court or requested to do so by certain statutorily authorized parties See I.”
Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4(b): 3 cases
Matter of the Est. of Harry L. Rickert, 934 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. 2010). “Ind.Code § 30-5-6-4(b) (2004). Because Baker was herself a joint owner of CDs that had been established by Rickert, she requested that the trial court appoint a special personal representative to investigate whether the joint accounts should be recovered for the Estate.”
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Natalie N. Stant Adult, Jeffrey Stant v. William Stant & Natalie Stant, 50 N.E.3d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “In this interlocutory appeal, Jeffrey raises the following consolidated and restated issue: whether thé trial court erred when it construed Indiana Code section 30-5-6-4 to apply only to powers of attorney created after July 1, 2012 and held that Jeffery was not entitled *150 to…”
Miller v. Miller, 935 N.E.2d 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Code § 30-4-3-22(8) (providing that a beneficiary who successfully maintains an action for breach of trust is entitled to attorney fees); Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4 .5(c) (providing that an AIF that is found to have breached his fiduciary duties to the principal may be responsible for…”
Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4(c): 1 case
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Natalie N. Stant Adult, Jeffrey Stant v. William Stant & Natalie Stant, 50 N.E.3d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “In this interlocutory appeal, Jeffrey raises the following consolidated and restated issue: whether thé trial court erred when it construed Indiana Code section 30-5-6-4 to apply only to powers of attorney created after July 1, 2012 and held that Jeffery was not entitled *150 to…”
Ind. Code § 30-5-6-4(d): 1 case
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Natalie N. Stant Adult, Jeffrey Stant v. William Stant & Natalie Stant, 50 N.E.3d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “In this interlocutory appeal, Jeffrey raises the following consolidated and restated issue: whether thé trial court erred when it construed Indiana Code section 30-5-6-4 to apply only to powers of attorney created after July 1, 2012 and held that Jeffery was not entitled *150 to…”
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.