An Indiana worker died in a 2025 crash, leaving a widow, five children and a wrongful-death claim; after a battle over who would control his estate, a November 12 appeals court backed his daughter as sole administrator
An Indiana appeals court has upheld the removal of Rebecca Johnson as co-personal representative of Shane Fields’ estate, leaving his daughter Hailey Daniels in charge. In its November 12 ruling, the court found that Johnson’s refusal to follow court directions and cooperate with Daniels had affected the administration of the estate.According to the details of the case given in the judgement, Fields died in a road accident in Kentucky on January 31, 2025, while working for R&S Excavating. He was survived by his wife, Breanna, whom he married in 2023, and five children. His three adult daughters were Hailey Daniels, Paige Fields and Ryann Fields. His sons were Landon Patterson and Elijah Barnhart.The estate had few assets. Its main potential value came from a wrongful-death claim linked to the accident. The person appointed to represent the estate would therefore play an important role in pursuing the claim.Johnson, a family friend nominated by Breanna, sought appointment as personal representative in February 2025. Daniels opposed her request and filed a petition to take charge of the estate. In July, the trial court appointed both women as co-personal representatives. Their disagreement soon extended to the choice of lawyers for the wrongful-death case.
Dispute over legal representation
Morgan and Morgan (M&M) filed a wrongful-death complaint in Kentucky on July 23, 2025, naming Johnson as the estate’s representative and sole plaintiff. An amended complaint filed on August 5 added Breanna as an individual plaintiff.Daniels wanted the estate to hire local lawyer Robert Miles and his firm, Kolb Roellgen & Traylor LLP (KR&T). Johnson questioned Miles’ experience and raised concerns about the firm’s fees.KR&T proposed a fixed contingency fee of 33%. M&M initially proposed 30%, but its fee could increase at later stages of the case, including an appeal.The trial court asked the two representatives to agree on a law firm. When they failed to reach an agreement, it selected KR&T. Johnson challenged the decision and sought permission to appeal it, but the trial court rejected her requests.The court also raised concerns about Johnson making decisions without consulting Daniels. It directed her to explain why she should not face contempt proceedings or removal, noting that she appeared to have consulted Breanna instead of her co-representative.
Concerns over estate records and payroll
The disagreement also involved the handling of estate records. In September 2025, Johnson filed an inventory without discussing it with Daniels. Daniels told the court that it left out items including a gun safe, guns and an iPhone.Johnson had also obtained an employer identification number for the estate without consulting Daniels. She shared it only after the court issued an order seeking an explanation of her conduct.Another concern involved Fields’ wages at R&S Excavating. The court proceedings showed that his wages had been issued in Breanna’s name. It was alleged that this arrangement allowed Fields to continue receiving workers’ compensation benefits from a previous employer while working at R&S.Johnson said she learnt about the arrangement after Fields’ death, when a tax document showed income in Breanna’s name. Daniels filed a police report. Johnson said she contacted R&S’s workers’ compensation insurer to ask about death benefits.The court also considered a possible conflict involving Johnson’s husband, who worked at R&S and had been Fields’ supervisor. Johnson acknowledged that legal action against the company could affect her husband’s employment.Daniels sought Johnson’s removal on December 9, 2025, citing the handling of estate records, the dispute over lawyers and her failure to follow court directions.At a January hearing, the trial court told Johnson that she had to sign KR&T’s fee agreement or face removal. Johnson remained unwilling to sign unless Miles worked with more experienced lawyers.On March 4, the trial court removed Johnson and appointed Daniels as the sole personal representative. It approved KR&T’s fee agreement, cancelled any agreement Johnson had entered into without Daniels’ approval and directed Johnson to provide a final account and hand over the estate records.
Appeals court rejects Johnson’s challenge
Johnson argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals that Breanna’s nomination gave her priority under state law to represent the estate.The appeals court acknowledged that the surviving spouse’s nominee had priority under the relevant law. However, it said this did not prevent a trial court from removing a personal representative found unsuitable.The judges found that Johnson had repeatedly refused to follow the trial court’s directions on legal representation. They said she was required to comply with the orders unless they were overturned on appeal.The court also noted that the dispute had delayed the wrongful-death and workers’ compensation claims. It said Johnson’s conduct went beyond a disagreement between co-representatives and interfered with the administration of the estate.The concerns over the payroll arrangement, her husband’s employment, the estate inventory and her dealings with M&M also supported the trial court’s decision, the appeals court said.Johnson had further argued that the trial court should have selected M&M or allowed both firms to work together. The appeals court rejected this challenge, saying the trial court had the authority to choose counsel when the representatives could not agree.It found no reason to overturn the selection of KR&T. The firm had lawyers licensed in Kentucky, where the wrongful-death case was being pursued. The difference between the proposed fees was also not enough to show that the trial court had made an improper choice.Daniels will thus remain the sole personal representative of Fields’ estate, with KR&T handling the wrongful-death claim.
Source link
