Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was whether a surviving spouse's elective share, as defined in Iowa Code 633.238, includes pay-on-death (POD) assets. The probate court ruled that three of Karen Myers's assets, a checking account, certificate of deposit, and an annuity, all payable on her death to her daughters, should be included in the elective share of her surviving spouse, Howard Myers. The assignees of Howard's elective share argued that the elective share should include POD assets under Sieh v. Sieh, which held the elective share includes assets in a revocable trust. The executor argued that the General Assembly, by amending section 633.238 in 2009, expressly limited the surviving spouse's elective share to four categories of assets listed in the statute, none of which included POD assets. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the probate court, concluding that the 2009 amendment to section 633.238 trumps Sieh, and the controlling statutory language omits POD assets from the surviving spouse's elective share. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Myers" on Justia Law

As part of an order approving the final report of the executor of the estate of Loren S. Bockwoldt, the district court approved extraordinary attorney fees for Pete Wessels and the law firm of Stanley, Lande and Hunter (SLH), attorneys for the estate. The extraordinary services contained in the application filed by Wessels and SLH were primarily for the defense of an earlier application for fees for extraordinary services that Wessels provided to the estate. The court also approved expenses. The court found that these attorney fees and expenses were for necessary and extraordinary services to the estate pursuant to Iowa Code 633.199. The court of appeals reversed, holding that attorney fees may not be awarded for litigating an application for attorney fees under chapter 633. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court in part and reversed in part, holding (1) extraordinary attorney fees may be awarded for defending a fee application in district court and on appeal; but (2) the case must be remanded for a hearing to determine the amount of fees to be awarded to SLH. View "In re Estate of Bockwoldt" on Justia Law

Husband obtained a purchase-money mortgage from Bank to invest in commercial real estate. Wife's signature was forged in executing the purchase-money mortgage. After Husband's death, Bank attempted to foreclose its mortgage, but Husband's Estate and Wife asserted Wife's fraudulent signature voided the mortgage. The district court (1) granted Bank summary judgment, concluding its purchase-money mortgage was superior to Wife's statutory dower interest and the Estate's other debts and charges; and (2) ordered any excess sale proceeds to be paid to the Estate. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the award of summary judgment; but (2) reversed the district court's determination that the foreclosure sale surplus be paid to the Estate, instead holding that Wife's statutory dower interest took priority over the Estate's other debts and charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that a surviving spouse's dower interest, codified in Iowa Code 633.211 as to nonhomestead real property, was not subject to the debts and charges of the Estate of the spouse who died intestate. View "Freedom Financial Bank v. Estate of Boesen " on Justia Law

An executor brought a cause of action against a bank for failing to obtain approval for investments it made on behalf of the deceased when the deceased was under conservatorship and the bank acted as conservator. The district court dismissed the executor's claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the conservator's failure to seek prior approval of the investment of the ward's property under Iowa Code 633.647 did not, in and of itself, make the conservator personally liable for losses caused by the investment; (2) to find the conservator personally liable for losses caused by an investment, the executor must prove a breach of fiduciary duty under Iowa Code 633.633A; and (3) in this case, the executor failed to prove a breach of fiduciary duty. View "Leo v. First Cmty. Trust, N.A." on Justia Law

During the administration of Ralph Roethler's estate, the executor of the estate did not notify Becky and Kent Lewis that Roethler's will gave the Lewises a first right to purchase eighty acres of farmland. The Lewises later sought to reopen Ralph Roethler's etate to allow them to exercise the option. The district court held that the Lewises met the statutory grounds set out in Iowa Code 633.489 to reopen the estate. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Lewises' petition to reopen was time-barred. On review, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's judgment, holding (1) the Lewises' petition to reopen satisfied the statutory grounds set forth in section 633.489 to reopen an estate, and (2) the district court properly construed the will to permit the Lewises to exercise their first right of purchase irrespective of the executor's intent to sell the land. View "In re Estate of Roethler" on Justia Law