Goff, J.
A terminally-ill father tried to broker peace between two of his children by having them agree between themselves how they would divide some of his assets after his death. But the peace was short lived. Before the father died, the son tried to rescind the agreement. After the father died, the daughter sued to enforce the agreement as part of the probate process. This appeal presents the question of whether the agreement between the children, executed before their father’s death, can be enforced using a chapter in the Probate Code providing for the adjudicated compromise of controversies. Because we find that the legislature intended the chapter to apply only to post-mortem agreements, the daughter cannot use this chapter of the Probate Code to enforce the agreement.
….
I. The Compromise Chapter applies only postmortem.
The Compromise Chapter of our Probate Code provides a method by which interested parties may compromise certain contests or controversies about a will, estate, or testamentary trust. Ind. Code ch. 29-1-9 (2004). Upon making such an agreement, any interested person can submit it for court approval. I.C. § 29-1-9-2(b). If the court finds that the agreement complies with statutory requirements (including that there is a good faith contest or controversy), it must “make an order approving the agreement and directing [its execution].” I.C. § 29-1-9-3.3. [Footnote omitted.]
….
This appeal is about timing: the parties disagree as to when contests or controversies regarding a will, estate, or testamentary trust may be settled using the Compromise Chapter. Cindy argues that such a contest or controversy can be settled under the chapter either before or after a person dies. To the contrary, the Personal Representatives assert that parties can use this statutory scheme to settle a contest or controversy only after the person’s death.
A. The language the legislature used in the Compromise Chapter itself shows that it applies only post-mortem.
….
By its own terms, the Controversy Chapter applies to agreements entered into after the relevant person’s death. Notably absent from the text of the chapter is any language whereby it would apply to pre-mortem agreements. We cannot add new words to a statute but are bound to apply statutes as the legislature has written them. The legislature wrote the Controversy Chapter to apply only to post-mortem agreements.
B. Finding that the Compromise Chapter applies only post-mortem complies with its stated purpose.
….
C. Indiana courts have not directly addressed the issue, but our case law lends more support to the conclusion that the Compromise Chapter applies only post-mortem.
….
… The Agreement here is a pre-mortem agreement. Thus, the Agreement does not fall within the scope of the Compromise Chapter, and Cindy cannot use that mechanism to enforce it. [Footnote omitted.]
II. At this stage of the litigation, we find it inappropriate to rule on David’s purported rescission or to review the Agreement under principles of general contract law.
Having answered the primary question of this appeal–whether Cindy can use the Compromise Chapter to enforce the pre-mortem Agreement– in the negative, only two separate loose ends remain to be tied up. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals considered whether David properly rescinded the Agreement, and the Court of Appeals reviewed the adequacy of consideration supporting the Agreement. At this stage of the litigation, we find it inappropriate to rule on either issue.
….
Conclusion
Today we hold that the Compromise Chapter may be used to enforce only post-mortem compromises. As a result, Cindy may not use the chapter to enforce her pre-mortem Agreement with David. We also find it inappropriate to enter judgment on David’s purported rescission of the Agreement or to consider the Agreement’s enforceability according to general contract law. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order and findings, except for its alternative finding that David rescinded the Agreement, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Rush, C.J., and David and Massa, JJ., concur.
Slaughter, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Slaughter, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s conclusion that the compromise chapter of our Probate Code, see I.C. ch. 29-1-9, does not apply to family settlement agreements entered into before the decedent’s death. In my view, such agreements are valid and enforceable; they are consistent with our State’s longstanding policy of encouraging freedom to contract; and nothing in the compromise chapter expressly prohibits them. I agree with the Court of Appeals’ thoughtful treatment of these issues and would adopt its opinion in full.
….