The decedent died in 1999 leaving a will which gave his wife a life use of all real estate that he owned. The remainder interest in most of the property went to several other family members equally. A separate provision of the will stated that the plaintiffs would have the first right to purchase 80 acres of farmland “at the appraised value in the Estate.” The right of purchase was to last for four months from the date of the decedent’s death. The 80-acre parcel was valued at $140,600 at the time of decedent’s death.
The problem was that notice was sent to all of the heirs, except the plaintiffs. The final report and final decree closing the estate were both filed some months later. In 2008, the wife passed away. During the probate of her estate, the heirs contracted to sell the 80-acres to another couple for $408,000. A subsequent title opinion revealed that the plaintiffs had never been notified of their right to purchase the parcel. Upon learning of the provision in the 1999 will, the plaintiffs filed a petition to reopen that estate. Of course, the other beneficiaries objected.
At trial, the court did reopen the estate and gave the plaintiffs the option to purchase the 80-acres at its appraised value at the time of decedent’s death. The residual beneficiaries appealed, contending that Iowa Code §633.488 provides that, if the property has already passed to “good faith purchasers for value (as was the case here), the rights of those purchasers should not be affected. There are a few situations where an estate may be reopened, however. Iowa Code §633.488 does allow a five year window for reopening of an estate after the final accounting by any person that was adversely affected by not receiving notice of a benefit under the will.
Here, the Iowa Court of Appeals did not allow the reopening of the estate, because the plaintiffs’ petition was not filed within the five year window. The court stated that, “Lack of notice, if the five years have passed, cannot be grounds to reopen an administration…” . Thus, the plaintiffs’ claim was barred. In re Estate of Roethler, No. 0-384/09-1105 (Iowa Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010).