GARRARD, S.J.
In December 2002, Robert Fisher formed a family limited partnership with himself and his wife, Evelyn, as general partners. As general partners, they each owned 1% of the limited partnership. The limited partners of the family limited partnership are Carol Foland, Arthur Fite, John Fisher, and Janice Giddens, each owning 24.5% of the limited partnership.
In December 2005, Robert purchased an annuity in the name of the family limited partnership. Robert’s goal was for the annuity to have tax deferred status, but he later discovered that by placing the annuity in the name of the limited partnership, it lost its tax deferred status. In April 2008, the annuity was re-titled in Robert’s name. One year later, the annuity company, at Robert’s request, rescinded the annuity because it did not meet Robert’s objective of tax deferred status. On April 13, 2009, Robert executed the documents for the rescission of the annuity, and, on April 23, 2009, Robert passed away. Evelyn had pre-deceased Robert.
. . . .
In June 2009, the annuity company issued a refund check to Robert’s Estate for the annuity premium in the amount of $527,829.30. In October 2009, Janice and Carol, as the personal representatives of Robert’s estate, petitioned the probate court for instructions as to the legal owner of the annuity premium refund. . . . .
. . . .
The parties agree that, in purchasing the annuity and placing it in the name of the limited partnership, Robert believed the annuity would obtain tax deferred status. However, he later discovered that this was not the case. Based upon this information, Robert re-titled the annuity in his name in 2008. . . . Robert re-titled the annuity in his name in order to avoid any further negative tax consequences as a result of the annuity being titled in the name of the limited partnership. The purpose of re-titling was beneficial to the limited partnership, and, most importantly, it did not change the character of the property. Even upon re-titling, the annuity remained partnership property.
Moreover, pursuant to the Fisher Family Limited Partnership Agreement, once the annuity became partnership property, no partner could have direct ownership of it. . . . Therefore, even when Robert re-titled the annuity in his name in order to avoid the undesirable tax consequences of titling the annuity in a limited partnership, the annuity continued to be partnership property.
. . . .
Clearly, it would be a breach of this fiduciary duty for Robert to take partnership property, re-title it in his own name, and then keep the property. In accordance with the dictates of the Fisher Family Limited Partnership Agreement and Indiana statutes, the annuity, and therefore the refund of the annuity premium, is a partnership asset.
BAKER, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.