DEEDS; REFORMATION:  A Case of Ultimate Chutzpah. Court denies request of incarcerated Father to reform deed of farmland to Son and Daughter to reflect a life estate in Father; Father had unclean hands because sole purpose of transfer was to evade government acting as creditor.

Hardy v. Hardy, 910 N.E.2d 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

Hardy is interesting because it demonstrates the brazen way in which a person clearly undeserving of equitable relief audaciously asked for it anyway, and then took his outlandish request up on appeal. It is a reassuring case because the party requesting equitable relief lost.

In this case, a Father owned approximately 80 acres of farmland in Indiana. This property included his residence. Father apparently faced an assortment of criminal charges related to both tax evasion and methamphetamines. On October 15, 2004, Father "purposefully conveyed seventy acres of his farmland to his Son and Daughter as joint tenants with right of survivorship." The court noted that the probable reason for the conveyance was the possibility that Father would soon be convicted of crimes that would lead to forfeiture of his land, significant fines in two states, a federal tax lien on property, and incarceration. In other words, the conveyance was meant to deprive state and federal governments, in their capacity as creditors, of assets that might satisfy the respective fines and debts.

In fact, Father was convicted and sent to the Big House in June of 2005 (actually, two Big Houses - first in Oklahoma and then Indiana, consecutively.)