Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Abel v. Bittner
Citations: 470 N.W.2d 348; 1991 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 186; 1991 WL 78503Docket: Nos. 89-1886, 89-1887
Court: Supreme Court of Iowa; May 15, 1991; Iowa; State Supreme Court
Plaintiffs Donald and Linda Abel appeal judgments from a probate action contesting the validity of a codicil to Harold Bechtel's will and a separate tort action for damages due to alleged interference with their inheritance. They argue the district court erred by concluding that the first codicil, despite being possibly influenced by undue influence, was validated by subsequent codicils. Additionally, they challenge the imposition of sanctions against their trial counsel under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 80(a), while defendants claim the sanctions were inadequate. Bechtel's original will, executed on January 21, 1985, included an $80,000 bequest to the Abels, which was removed by the first codicil dated July 26, 1985. The second and third codicils, executed on August 19 and December 11, 1986, respectively, reaffirmed the first codicil and included bequests to others. After Bechtel's death on April 8, 1987, the Abels filed a probate petition in August 1987, alleging forgery, undue influence, and mental incompetence regarding the codicils, followed by a tort claim in March 1988. In July 1989, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims except undue influence related to the codicils. Subsequent scheduling revealed the Abels lacked jurisdiction over all legatees named in the later codicils, prompting them to withdraw their challenges to those codicils. A pretrial order established that the only issue for trial was the undue influence regarding the first codicil. Defendants moved for summary judgment in the probate action, arguing the first codicil was reaffirmed by the later codicils, which the court agreed validated the first codicil. Consequently, the court dismissed the Abels' claims in both actions. Following these dismissals, the court addressed defendants' request for sanctions. It found no initial violations under rule 80(a) but concluded plaintiffs' trial counsel had sufficient opportunity to recognize the lack of merit in certain claims before a proposed amendment, finding that the amendment violated the rule. A public admonishment was deemed an appropriate sanction for the violation in question. The court opted not to rule on a motion for sanctions in the probate action due to a pending appeal. The first significant issue addressed was the doctrine of reaffirmation, which validates a previously invalid will due to undue influence when a codicil is executed by the testator free from such influence. The court cited various cases supporting this doctrine, emphasizing its consistency with existing Iowa case law on testamentary dispositions. The plaintiffs' withdrawal of challenges to the second and third codicils did not allow them to contest these instruments in relation to the first codicil. The court upheld the district court's application of the reaffirmation doctrine, ruling that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law in both the probate and law actions due to the prohibition against collateral attacks on testamentary dispositions. Regarding sanctions, both parties contested the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs' counsel warranted sanctions under rule 80(a). While plaintiffs argued against any sanctions, defendants claimed the sanction imposed was insufficient. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court upheld the district court's order, finding no basis for sanctions in the probate action due to the circumstances surrounding the original petition. The court concluded that all judgments should be affirmed in both actions.