An Indiana woman who launched an aggressive legal battle to overturn her late father’s decision to leave his entire estate to his fiancée has lost her case, leaving her burdened with more than $22,208 in court-ordered attorney fees alongside additional pending appellate penalties.

The ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals delivered a crushing blow to Stacia Davis, who contested the last will and testament of her father, Larry Davis. Larry passed away in 2022 at the age of 79, having executed a testamentary document nearly two years prior that directed all of his assets to Michelle Tressler, his domestic partner of a decade. The couple had lived together since 2012. Under the terms of the document, Larry’s three adult children—Sherry, Scott, and Stacia—were explicitly left with nothing unless Tressler predeceased him. Because Tressler survived him, she remained the sole legal beneficiary of the entire estate.

The Multi-Year Estate Battle and Questioned Signatures

The bitter family clash erupted almost immediately following Larry’s death in 2022. While probate authorities admitted the will and initially named Tressler to administer the estate, Stacia filed a formal contest just one month later. She asserted that her father lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute a valid legal instrument and leveled allegations of fraudulent conduct and improper coercion against Tressler.

The dispute dragged on through procedural delays until a pivotal evidentiary hearing in February 2025. The court evaluated testimony from Stacia, Tressler, and the two subscribing witnesses who had witnessed Larry sign the document. Although neither witness could recount every microscopic detail of the signing event, both affirmed under oath that their signatures on the will were authentic, providing critical support for the legal validity of the instrument.

A Dubious Document and Accusations of Fraud

A shocking development derailed Stacia’s challenge during the trial when a contradictory affidavit was produced. The submission ostensibly came from one of the subscribing witnesses, purporting to cast doubt on whether she had actually observed Larry execute the document. However, when called to the stand, the witness outright disavowed the paper, testifying under oath that the signature on the affidavit was not hers.

Stacia stated that the disputed affidavit had arrived unexpectedly by post and maintained that she did not know who had sent it.

Unpersuaded by her explanation, the lower court determined the affidavit was fraudulent and sharply condemned the decision to sustain the lawsuit on such defective grounds. The presiding judge concluded that Stacia had provided no credible or admissible proof showing her father suffered from cognitive impairment or that Tressler exerted undue influence or pressure over his estate planning decisions.

Mounting Delays and a Heavy Financial Penalty

The protracted litigation caused severe administrative gridlock for the broader estate. In July 2024, the lower court removed Tressler from her fiduciary role after identifying significant administration delays, appointing attorney Robert W. York as a special administrator to oversee the proceedings. By the conclusion of the trial, court dockets reflected a staggering 431 entries across two interconnected cases.

Much of this extensive docket was directly attributable to Stacia’s aggressive filings and sweeping document requests, which accumulated substantial legal costs while yielding zero admissible evidence. When the trial court dismissed the will contest in 2025, it determined that the estate should not shoulder the financial burden caused by baseless litigation. York submitted a fee request totaling $26,198.61. The judge ordered Stacia to personally reimburse $22,208.18 of that amount, shifting only the remainder to the estate.

Flawed Appeal Compounds Daughter’s Debt

Undeterred by the severe monetary judgment, Stacia appealed the ruling without legal counsel, representing herself before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The pro se petition proved catastrophic. Appellate judges discovered that her briefs were riddled with structural flaws, including unadmitted trial documents, omitted citations to the official record, and citations to nonexistent or inapplicable legal precedents.

The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the trial court’s decision, validating Larry’s will and sustaining the $22,208.18 fee penalty. The judges went a step further, finding the defects in her appellate arguments so egregious that they warranted an additional award of appellate attorney fees. The matter has been remanded to the lower court to calculate the total sum Stacia must now pay, transforming an inheritance contest into a devastating personal debt.