from the Monroe Circuit Court The Honorable Elizabeth A.
Cure, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 53C01-1504-MI-657
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Zachary J. Stock Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, JUDITH M. FULFORD William J. Spalding
Spalding Law LLC Bloomington, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, THOMAS BUNGER Scott D. Pankow
of the Case
This matter involves three consolidated cases initiated by
Cheryl Underwood ("Underwood"): two claims against
the Estate of Kenneth K. Kinney (the "Estate")
seeking contribution for a partnership liability
(collectively, the "Contribution Action"); a claim
against the Estate for alleged fraudulent transfer of
property (the "Fraudulent Transfer Action"); and a
petition for sale and partition of the parties' jointly
owned real estate (the "Partition Action").
Presently, Underwood appeals the trial court's judgment
in favor of the Estate in the Contribution Action and
Fraudulent Transfer Action and its retention of funds in the
Partition Action. Specifically, Underwood argues that the
trial court erred in concluding that she could not recover in
the Contribution Action and Fraudulent Transfer Action
because the Estate was entitled to both common-law and
statutory indemnification for Underwood's wrongful
conduct. She further argues that the trial court erred in
retaining the proceeds ("Partition Proceeds") from
the sale of the parties' jointly owned real estate (the
"Partition Sale") even after determining the
parties' respective ownership interests. Concluding that
the trial court did not err in concluding that the Estate was
entitled to indemnification but did err in retaining
Underwood's and the Estate's shares of the Partition
Proceeds, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Whether the trial court clearly erred in entering judgment in
favor of the Estate in the Contribution Action and Fraudulent
Whether the trial court clearly erred in retaining some of
the Partition Proceeds after determining the parties'
respective ownership interests.
These parties come before our Court again following a lengthy
factual and procedural history spanning nearly two decades.
We have detailed this history in two previously published
opinions (collectively, the "Demming Litigation").
See Demming v. Underwood, 943 N.E.2d 878, 882-83
(Ind.Ct.App. 2011), trans. denied; Demming v.
Underwood, 40 N.E.3d 887, 891-93 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). The
parties have also been heard by our Supreme Court in a
property-division matter (the "Partition Action")
also relating to this matter. See Underwood v.
Bunger, 70 N.E.3d 338, 340-42 (Ind. 2017). The following
is a summary of facts pertinent to the issues Underwood
Sometime in 2002, Sheree Demming ("Demming")
retained Underwood, a real estate broker, to help her
purchase two properties on East Sixth Street in Bloomington,
Indiana (the "Sixth Street Properties"). Instead of
facilitating the sale to Demming, Underwood approached
Kenneth Kinney ("Kinney") about purchasing the
Sixth Street Properties as partners. ...