COA affirms ruling against ex-wife in husband’s IRA case

A woman seeking to obtain the full balance of her late husband’s individual retirement account couldn’t convince an appellate court that she shouldn’t have been denied summary judgment against his estate.

Just days before his death, Robert Hamilton left a copy of his divorce decree with office personnel at the office of his financial adviser, Thomas Rillo. Hamilton provided the document in an effort to change his designated IRA beneficiary from his ex-wife, Donna Hamilton, to his two daughters.

Robert’s IRA account balance at that time was $389,482.78 as of Aug. 31, 2017 and stated that Donna was entitled to 50 percent of his retirement account as of that date in the amount of $194,741.39. An agreement between the parties that was attached to the dissolution agreement ordered that he take all necessary steps to separate out Donna’s portion within 30 days of the decree.

Upon his death, one of the Robert’s daughters was appointed personal representative of his estate, and Donna filed a claim against the estate to preserve her sum-certain share of the IRA in the event it was a probate asset. She subsequently filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, claiming Robert had died before separating out her share of the IRA, that she had later learned of his actions to switch beneficiary designation in the IRA account, and that she had filed a claim with the estate and had yet to receive her 50 percent share.

Donna claimed she was entitled to the balance of Robert’s IRA funds because he never fully executed the change of beneficiary to his daughters, but the Monroe Circuit Court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the estate.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in Donna J. Hamilton v. Robert D. Hamilton, 19A-DN-96, first finding the trial court did not commit reversible error in implicitly denying Donna’s motion to strike portions of Robert’s designated affidavits.

In Rillo’s affidavit specifically, Donna sought to strike a portion she considered to be hearsay, in which Rillo said his staff had advised Robert that Rillo was out of the office when Robert brought the divorce copies, but would contact him upon his return.

“Wife claims that Rillo did not have personal knowledge as to the challenged statements. Essentially, she claims that the phrases ‘My office’ and ‘My staff’ are insufficient to demonstrate Rillo’s personal knowledge. We disagree,” Judge Terry Crone wrote for the court. “…According to agency principles, for purposes of knowledge, Rillo and his staff members are one.”

The appellate court additionally rejected Donna’s similar claims against an affidavit filed by a friend whom Robert was with when he delivered the divorce copies and called about changing the beneficiary. The court concluded amendments made to the affidavit, which indicated the friend had personal knowledge of and was in the presence of Robert’s attempts to change his designated IRA beneficiary, were sufficient to cure the alleged defects.

Lastly, the appellate court found no error in the trial court’s grant of the estate’s motion for summary judgment, disagreeing with Donna’s assertion that the estate failed to meet its burden because it did not designate any evidence listing the requirements to change an IRA beneficiary.

“In the unchallenged portion of his affidavit, Rillo averred that in delivering the dissolution decree to his office, Husband had done everything within his power to separate out Wife’s one-half interest and to execute a change of the designated beneficiary. Wife did not designate any evidence to the contrary,” Crone wrote. “Husband substantially complied with the Agreement’s requirement as to the separation of accounts and did exactly what he had been instructed to do concerning the change of his IRA beneficiary. He died two days later, while waiting for Rillo to return and prepare the necessary paperwork so that he could formally execute these changes.

“He therefore is deemed to have completed these changes pursuant to the equitable rule of substantial compliance,” the appellate court concluded. “Accordingly, we affirm the grant of the Estate’s motion for summary judgment and the denial of Wife’s motion for summary judgment.”