Improbable Coincidence or Kleptocracy? Mary Willis

Mary Willis's mother, Joyce Geitz passed away on May 18, 2017 at the age of 87, with Willis acting as executrix. The probability of happenstance surrounding Willis's administration of her mother's estate is very small. So many coincidences suggest an equal or greater chance that Willis's abused her position as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Indiana Appellate and Supreme Court for personal benefit. Even if not benefitting, Willis should at least consider "the appearance of impropriety" which she failed to avoid. But if Willis manipulated the law for personal benefit, other peers including Chief Justice Rush, almost certainly knew, yet failed to report, or may have even conspired.


Timeline 

• May 18, 2017 - Joyce Geitz passes away at the age of 87. Her husband died in 2004. So along with Mary, Joyce's direct heirs appear to be son, Edward Geitz of Farmville, VA, and children of a deceased daughter.
• May 18, 2017 - The Indiana Supreme Court proposes an amendment to Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 allowing an exception to otherwise required recusal by a judge. 
• July 31, 2017 - Chief Justice Rush signs the order amending Rule 2.11, effective immediately.
• Aug 11, 2017 - Mary Willis opens an estate filing as personal representative for Joyce in Henry Circuit Court 1, where Willis was presiding judge prior to her appointment as CAO - Case # 33C01-1708-EU-000092. Presiding here is Judge Witham, who served under Willis in Circuit Court 3. He does not recuse himself. 
• Sept 1, 2017 - The Indiana Supreme Court proposes an amendment to Trial Rule 86(f) with specific provisions for documents that are not able to be converted to electronic format. But that provision is oddly specific to wills only.
• Oct 31, 2017 - Chief Justice Rush signs the order amending Trial Rule 86(f), effective Jan 1, 2018.
• Jan 3, 2018 - Indiana Sen. Eric Koch proposes SB 247, regarding restrictions to the rights of creditors, claimants, and beneficiaries in probate and trust law.
• Feb 19, 2018 - House Judiciary Committee has hearing on SB 247. Willis appears at the hearing, but not for SB 247. Willis instead addresses the committee on SB 238, a bill that updates terminology for the renamed Indiana Office of Judicial Administration (IOJA), directed by Willis as then CAO.
• Mar 21, 2018 - SB 247 is signed into law as Public Law 163
• Mar 21, 2018 - Judge Witham signs the closing statement for Joyce Geitz's estate. Note the change of year.

• April 19, 2018 - The Indiana Supreme Court, by letter to state judges, announced Mary Willis's resignation the prior day. No explanation was given for the unexpected departure.

Does SB 247 really matter?
Consider this provision. The exact language pulled from page 4:
(22) "No contest provision" refers to a provision of a will that, if given effect, would reduce or eliminate the interest of a beneficiary of the will who, directly or indirectly, initiates or otherwise pursues:
   (A) an action to contest the admissibility or validity of the will;
   (B) an action to set aside a term of the will; or
   (C) any other act to frustrate or defeat the testator's intent as expressed in the terms of the will.

Observations

• Chief Justice Rush (as Willis's supervisor) must have known about Willis's mother passing away when signing both rule amendment orders.
• The IOJA is primarily charged with all actions regarding changes to rules of court. Public email comments are fielded at this office, or mailed directly to a staff member (here Mary Willis). Various committees overseeing court rules are supported by IOJA staff. Proposed amendments are drafted by IOJA.
• The amended rules requiring recusal permit a judge, only in very limited circumstances, and only with the agreement of all parties, to continue hearing the matter. This must be agreed and on the record. If Willis's actions were counter to the interests of either other possible heirs, or to a creditor, it does not appear in the record that those parties agreed to Judge Witham continuing to hear the matter.
• It certainly appears that other heirs that may not be as informed could have an interest in Joyce Geitz's estate. 
• It appears that Ms. Geitz sold a Porter County lake property near Valparaiso in 2004 for $300,000, that was owned by her and her husband's joint trust. 

If someone were to investigate this matter, what should they look for next?

• Did Joyce Geitz have any material creditors? Were any of those creditors unable to collect?
• Did Joyce's will contain a no contest provision even though she passed away before the law was even proposed, much less enacted? If so, did the drafting lawyer customarily write this provision into other wills, and why?
• Does the official court record of Joyce Geitz's estate have a believable copy of her will? Does it appear to be valid, and not contain provisions that are unlikely to be original? Filings show the will was dated November 27, 1996, not long enough to be brittle. So if a copy of the will was not provided, did Willis rely on a waiver under the amended TR 86(f)?
• How did the amendments to TR 86(f) and Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 come about? What public comments were received? Who reviewed them? Willis or another IOJA staff member that did not have an apparent conflict at that moment?
• Were any conversations had between Willis and legislators considering SB 247? Did Willis leave the Judicial Committee hearing after her address, or did she stay for the hearing on SB 247?
• The CCS entry on December 20, 2017, scheduled the final estate closing for March 20, 2018. The scheduled end of Indiana's 2018 legislative session is March 15th. Given an unexpected flurry of last minute legislative activity, the final signature and official passing of SB 247 was delayed until March 21st. Geitz's estate was not closed by Judge Witham until the 21st.  

Most of these questions are not overly burdensome for those with proper authority, access, and sworn duty to at least take a few minutes on it. And yes, even though the appearance of impropriety is palpable, this could all be just amazing coincidence.

If you believe you are a claimant to Joyce Geitz estate that may have been harmed by Willis's actions, then you might want to talk to an attorney. But if you believe that Willis was able to manipulate the law for personal benefit at your expense, then it follows that any Indiana attorney pursuing a civil claim in any Indiana court has insurmountable odds facing what could be a kangaroo court with a judge who fears professional retribution if finding against Willis. The same would be true of any Indiana attorney representing you. Still, Edward Geitz of Farmville, VA, Cori Lantz Cannon, Bobby Lantz, Glen Oaks Health / Trilogy Health Services, LLC in New Castle, the State of Indiana, and others may want to consider whether they have been harmed by Mary Willis and possible responses.

Recently, the Indiana Supreme Court, named Willis a senior judge. Even though explanation has never been given for her abrupt departure, Willis will once again decide the fates of Hoosiers. One hopes that she can avoid appearances of impropriety and not undermine the public trust in our judicial system, or at least avoid actual impropriety and self-profiting bias.