Regina Geels v. Lindsay Flottemesch

── Regina Geels v. Lindsay Flottemesch ── Court: Indiana Supreme Court Date: April 08, 2026 Author: Loretta Rush Category: General FILED Apr 08 2026, 10:06 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court IN THE Indiana Supreme Court Supreme Court Case No. 25S-PL-225 Regina Geels, Appellant (Defendant/Counterclaimant below), –v– Lindsay Flottemesch, Mackenzi Hatfield, and Stephanie Malinowski as Guardian for Marley Malinowski, Appellees (Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants below). Argued: November 18, 2025 | Decided: April 8, 2026 Appeal from the Allen Superior Court No. 02D09-2107-PL-284 The Honorable David J. Avery, Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals No. 24A-PL-2911 Opinion by Justice Goff Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Molter concur. Justice Slaughter dissents, believing transfer should be denied. Goff, Justice. The distribution of proceeds from a life-insurance policy may bring problems when the policyholder’s intended beneficiary does not match the beneficiary named in the policy itself. To address this problem, federal law typically requires that the proceeds go to the beneficiary named in the plan documents while state law may provide more equitable remedies. Here, a man named his sister as the beneficiary of his life-insurance policies with instructions to distribute the proceeds to his daughters. Despite these instructions, the sister claims the proceeds for herself. The issues are (1) whether the sister waived her federal-preemption defense by failing to raise it at the trial-court level, and (2) whether the trial court erred in imposing a constructive trust in favor of the daughters after finding that the sister had breached her fiduciary duty to her deceased brother. Concluding that the sister waived her federal-preemption defense and that the trial court did not err in finding that she breached her fiduciary duty, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History At the time of his death in 2021, David Malinowski (the Father) had three children (whom we refer to collectively as the Daughters): thirty-six- year-old Lindsay Flottemesch and thirty-three-year-old Mackenzi Hatfield (from Father’s first marriage) and nine-year-old Marley Malinowski (from Father’s second marriage). 1 Having divorced Marley’s mother, Stephanie, Father was not married at the time he died. Father had two life-insurance policies through his employer, both of which were issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and had a total benefit value of $150,000. Three years prior to his death, Father asked his sister, Regina Geels (Aunt), to help him hire attorneys for his estate planning and to represent 1Marley’s mother, Stephanie, participates as guardian for Marley who died in January 2024. Geels v. Flottemesch, 259 N.E.3d 1003, 1005 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 25S-PL-225 | April 8, 2026 Page 2 of 15 him in a child-custody dispute with Marley’s mother. In June 2018, Father executed a will and durable power of attorney, appointing Aunt as his attorney-in-fact. That same month, Mackenzi texted her Aunt to say that, according to Father, he had instructed the Aunt to split his life-insurance benefits among the Daughters with Marley’s share held in trust. Aunt responded, “Yes I am convincing him of [a] trust to protect his assets and avoid court with [Stephanie],” adding that “it will pay out when [Marley] is 18” and “will allow you and Lindsay to get yours without taxes.” Appellant’s App.