« Courts - More on "Va. Special Session Called to Address Crime Lab Testimony Ruling" | Main | Law - More on "Amazon's Kindle to Sell Law Books" and the implications »

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Interesting probate case in St. Joseph Circuit Court

In a story headed "New executor must handle Gabriele will," Alicia Gallegos reports today in the South Bend Tribune:

SOUTH BEND — A judge has ordered a new administrator be named to handle Philip Gabriele's will, instead of the late doctor's friend, as originally written in his now-contested will.

At a long hearing Wednesday — involving five lawyers and more to come — St. Joseph Circuit Court Judge Michael Gotsch agreed the complex nature of the case means a special administrator is warranted.

Susan Manuszak, the Gabrieles' purported best friend, had been in charge of executing the will, but attorneys for Gabriele's brother-in-law argued her role in the case may prevent her from being impartial. Manuszak was left 75 percent of the Gabriele estate, according to court documents.

Jon Alex Dawson, brother of Marcella Gabriele, filed the civil lawsuit last week, alleging Gabriele's will was improperly executed. He claims that the doctor was depressed and penned the document while under the "undue influence" of Manuszak.

The will was dated just four days before Gabriele committed suicide and his wife was shot to death.

Before the case can move forward, attorneys for the estate from Baker and Daniels said Wednesday they need more time to review the Gabrieles' assets and evaluate his total properties.

Gotsch gave the group 65 days to finish the review and produce the findings.

Gotsch also denied a motion by Dawsons' attorneys, David Wemhoff and Timothy Kalamaros, to disqualify Baker and Daniels attorneys from the case.

Dawson's attorneys say Baker and Daniels have a conflict of interest because they represented the Gabrieles in the their criminal case.

They also contend that because the Gabrieles owed the firm money for their services, they are also creditors in the estate case. Manuszak being involved in the case also means Bakers and Daniels cannot ethically represent both, they said.

But Baker and Daniels attorney Carl Greci argued the firm does not individually represent Manuszak and she would have to obtain her own representation in the case. Baker and Daniels are representing only the estate, they said.

Gotsch denied the motion for disqualification, saying there was no credible evidence of a conflict of interest. He acknowledged, however, he could revisit the issue if it comes back up during the estate case.

Attorneys for all parties refused to comment after the hearing.

There is a long back story here that the ILB has not covered

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 23, 2009 08:56 AM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions