- 36 -
was born and raised in the same area. Petitioner further notes
that Garry engaged in farming in Warrick County for most of his
life.
Petitioner also reminds us that Donald Hendrickson testified
that decedent loved farming and wanted the family farm to
continue after Garry's death. Donald Hendrickson further
testified that Garry had let the farm decline in the years
leading up to his death and that at that time farming had already
become the difficult business it is today. Petitioner asserts
that decedent and the children therefore had to work and invest
together to preserve the family farm and that decedent insisted
this be done.
We are of course aware that operating a family farm can be
an extremely demanding and daunting task. We are also aware that
in these times a farmer (and his family) can work long and hard,
in the most businesslike way, and yet earn no economic profit
from the enterprise.
We have no doubt that the family farm was important to
decedent and the children, for many laudable reasons. The facts
of this case, however, do not fit the story petitioner's argument
constructs around them. Petitioner's argument largely explains
what happened to the assets decedent received from Garry's
estate. However, it fails to explain what happened to the income
generated by those assets.
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011