## Facts

- Marian E. Boelson created an inter vivos revocable trust in 1996 that left a $50,000 bequest to a friend and the residue to the University of Southern Indiana Foundation (USIF), with no provision for her brother, Richard A. Baker.
- In 1998, Boelson amended the trust to give Baker an income interest in a trust funded at her death, with the remainder to USIF.
- In 2001, Boelson executed a second restatement/amendment that substantially increased Baker’s beneficial interest and reduced USIF’s share.
- By 2001, the trust corpus consisted of intangible personal property (cash and securities), not real estate.
- After Boelson’s death, USIF challenged the 2001 amendment as the product of Baker’s undue influence and sought a construction of the trust favorable to USIF as residuary beneficiary.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Baker and the successor trustee, Integra Bank, N.A., upholding the 2001 amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a presumption of undue influence arose from the relationship between Boelson and Baker and Baker’s increased benefit under the 2001 trust amendment.
2. Whether the 2001 trust provisions were ambiguous such that the court could construe them contrary to their asserted plain meaning.
3. Whether extrinsic evidence could be used to interpret the trust terms despite claimed clarity in the written instrument.
4. Whether doctrines associated with equitable conversion affected interpretation where the trust held only intangible personal property.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Baker and Integra.
- The court held that no presumption of undue influence applied because the designated evidence did not show Baker’s dominance or control over Boelson’s decision-making.
- The court held the 2001 trust language was clear and unambiguous and therefore governed distribution as written, including Baker’s increased interest and USIF’s reduced share.
- The court held extrinsic evidence was improper because the instrument was capable of unambiguous construction.
- The court rejected reliance on equitable-conversion concepts because the trust corpus contained only intangible personalty and no real-property conversion issue was presented.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence in donative transfers requires evidence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship plus dominance or control by the beneficiary over the donor; a close relationship and a favorable disposition alone are insufficient.
- On summary judgment, the nonmovant must designate evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact; otherwise, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- When a trust instrument is clear and unambiguous, courts enforce its plain terms and do not resort to extrinsic evidence to alter those terms.
- Doctrines tied to equitable conversion do not alter interpretation where the trust estate consists solely of intangible personal property and no real-property conversion question exists.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the 2001 trust amendment according to its plain language and upheld summary judgment for the beneficiary and trustee, concluding that USIF failed to show dominance-based undue influence and that neither extrinsic evidence nor equitable-conversion doctrine could be used to rewrite an unambiguous trust.


Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, 843 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2006)