Intestacy and the Homestead Exemption

In this case, a 51-year old man died intestate.  To pass the assets, Iowa law requires that the court appoint administrators to administer the intestate estate.  As a result, the decedent’s parents were appointed as administrators. Upon their appointment, the administrators issued the man’s long-time partner and “common-law” spouse a notice to vacate the homestead that she shared with their son. The administrators subsequently moved into the home. The administrators indicated on the estate report and inventory that their son was unmarried at the time of his death. Thus, the common-law spouse filed a claim with the probate court, electing to take her “intestate share” of the estate. She also claimed that she should be reimbursed for her joint survivor ownership interest in the homestead.  The surviving “spouse” changed her last name to the decedent’s last name and her first name to “Jingles.” 

The probate court held a hearing on Jingles’ claims and Jingles testified that she had been living with the decedent for nearly eight years and that she had contributed to make “substantial improvements” to the homestead. She also testified that they had treated one another as husband and wife, and had a “close and loving relationship.” Jingles stated that she and the decedent had even planned to adopt two of her grandchildren, as their mother had lost custody.

Throughout some of the judicial proceedings, Jingles represented herself. During the proceedings she attempted to assert her legal rights without counsel. Nonetheless, the probate court granted the administrators’ petition to sell the decedent’s real estate. Jingles appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals, contending that the probate court’s approval of the sale of the decedent’s real estate violated her homestead rights. The appellate court went on to discuss the importance of promoting stability and sheltering the family from “economic misfortune” through the preservation of homestead rights. Even though Jingles, while acting without an attorney, had not technically complied with court rules in her appeal and arguments in front of the probate court, the appellate court found that, in Iowa, “pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings.” Thus, the appellate court granted Jingles some leeway and found that she had sufficiently raised her objection to the proposed sale based upon her homestead rights as the decedent’s “wife.” 

The probate court had already found that Jingles and the decedent were common-law spouses and that Jingles did have the right to take her intestate share from the estate. The question was whether she had a right in the homestead. The appellate court found that she did have homestead rights.  Jingles next claimed that her “in-laws” were engaging in self-dealing by petitioning for the sale of the property. However, the court found that they substantially complied with their duties as administrators. In re Estate of Waterman, No. 1-026/10-0960, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 193 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2011).