Michael McCoy v. Douglas McCoy

── Michael McCoy v. Douglas McCoy ── Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Date: May 08, 2026 Author: Paul Mathias Category: General IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED In re Petition to Docket Trust of B. Alice McCoy May 08 2026, 8:51 am Michael D. McCoy, CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Appellant-Petitioner Court of Appeals and Tax Court v. Douglas M. McCoy, Appellee-Respondent May 8, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-TR-367 Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court The Honorable Geoffrey J. Bradley, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 53C01-2110-TR-275 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-TR-367 | May 8, 2026 Page 1 of 33  Opinion by Judge Vaidik Judges Mathias and Pyle concur. Vaidik, Judge. Case Summary [1] B. Alice McCoy was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2009. In early 2012, she and her husband, Morris, decided to change their estate plans so that one of their three children, Michael, wouldn’t receive any of their rental properties. Morris and Alice hired an attorney, who prepared the documents, including revocable trusts, and met with Morris and Alice to review and execute them in August 2012. After Alice died in 2021, Michael filed her trust with the trial court and moved to set it aside on grounds that she lacked testamentary capacity in August 2012. [2] Before trial, Michael deposed the attorney, who denied knowing anything about Alice’s mental or medical condition before August 2012 and denied that family members had reported any cognitive decline to him before then. Six months after the deposition and two business days before the bench trial, the attorney turned over two emails. In the first email dated March 2012, the attorney wrote to his law partner that Alice (1) “probably” has “very early Alzheimer’s,” (2) her family members “do not openly admit her developing limitations,” and (3) he didn’t know if her family knows that she isn’t qualified to serve as trustee of Morris’s trust. In the second email dated April 2012, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-TR-367 | May 8, 2026 Page 2 of 33  Morris told the attorney that (1) Alice is “seeing a neurologist” and “taking 2 kinds of medicine”; (2) he might be able to get her declared incompetent if the attorney thought it “would help”; and (3) Alice “does not understand everything she is signing.” [3] At trial, the parties agreed to admit the attorney’s deposition in lieu of his live testimony. Michael moved to admit the emails, arguing that they impeach the attorney’s credibility and would help the court evaluate the opinions of certain expert witnesses under Indiana Evidence Rule 703. The trial court excluded the emails on hearsay grounds without ever reviewing them. The court concluded that Alice had testamentary capacity in August 2012 and therefore her trust is valid. Michael now appeals. [4] As a matter of first impression, we hold that under Indiana Evidence Rule 806, when a hearsay statement, such as the attorney’s deposit