## Facts

- Olga Mestrovic died in 1984; her will was admitted to probate and 1st Source Bank was appointed personal representative.
- Olga owned numerous artworks created by her husband, artist Ivan Meštrović; her will directed that undesignated Meštrović works be sold and proceeds distributed to family members.
- The Bank sold Olga’s residence to Terrence and Antoinette Wilkin under a written purchase agreement that listed specific personal property included in the sale but did not mention any artworks.
- After closing, the house remained cluttered; a Bank trust officer offered either (a) the Bank would pay for a rubbish-removal service, or (b) the Wilkins would clean the house and keep any personal property they wanted.
- At the time of the cleanup offer, neither party believed valuable art remained in the home; the remaining contents were treated as debris or low-value leftovers.
- While cleaning, the Wilkins discovered eight drawings and a plaster sculpture by Ivan Meštrović and claimed ownership based on the cleanup arrangement.
- The Bank petitioned the probate court to determine title to the artworks, asserting they were estate assets; the probate court ordered the Wilkins to return them.

## Issues

1. Whether the cleanup arrangement (“keep any items of personal property you want” if you clean the premises) formed an enforceable agreement transferring ownership of the eight drawings and plaster sculpture to the purchasers.
2. If an agreement existed, whether it failed for lack of a meeting of the minds because both parties did not assent to transferring valuable, unknown artwork.
3. Whether the artworks remained property of the decedent’s estate, requiring return to the personal representative.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s judgment for the Bank.
- The court held there was no contract transferring the Meštrović drawings and sculpture to the Wilkins because the parties did not mutually assent to include valuable artworks within the cleanup arrangement.
- Even if the cleanup arrangement were treated as an agreement, the shared mistaken belief that only rubbish or low-value items remained defeated any claim that the Bank intended to convey valuable art.
- The drawings and sculpture were estate property, and the Wilkins were ordered to return them to the Bank as personal representative.

## Legal Principles

- A valid contract requires mutual assent to the same subject matter; informal statements made in a limited context (such as rubbish removal) do not transfer valuable property that neither party contemplated.
- Where both parties act under a shared mistake about a basic assumption concerning the nature of the property involved (e.g., “rubbish” versus valuable art), there is no meeting of the minds as to transfer of that property, and any asserted agreement may be ineffective as to the mistaken subject matter.
- Personal property owned by a decedent remains an estate asset unless clearly and knowingly transferred; a real estate sale that lists included personal items but omits valuable art does not convey omitted estate assets by implication.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the cleanup-for-contents arrangement did not transfer ownership of hidden Meštrović artworks because the parties never assented to conveying valuable art, and the items therefore remained estate assets subject to return to the personal representative.


Wilkin v. 1st Source Bank, 548 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990)