Anderson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 01 August 1939 |
| Docket Number | 43937. |
| Citation | 286 N.W. 446,227 Iowa 25 |
| Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. ANDERSON et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; Ernest M. Miller Judge.
Action in equity to partition real property. Decree adjudicating title to the property in the plaintiff Charles Edward Anderson and the defendant Frank Bernard Anderson. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Superseding opinion in 279 N.W. 441.
Floyd E. Billings, of Red Oak, guardian ad litem for minor appellants.
Lester L. Orsborn, of Red Oak, for Charles Edward Anderson, Mabel Irene Anderson, and the Red Oak Trust & Savings Bank.
W. C Ratcliff and R. J. Swanson, both of Red Oak, for Frank Bernard Anderson and Maude Anderson.
Swante Anderson, a resident of Montgomery County, died testate on October 12, 1907. His will was probated and, after the formal parts, and item 1 which provided for the payment of debts and expenses, by item 2 he bequeathed all personal property to his wife, Christine Louise Anderson, in the event of her survival; and by item 3, bequeathed the personal property, in the event of his wife's death before his own, to his three children, Clara Amanda, Charles Edward, and Frank Bernard, share and share alike. Item 4 of said will is as follows: " I do hereby give and devise to my said wife, Christine Louise, if she survive me, the possession, use, rents and profits of all of the real estate of which I die seized, for so long only as she remains my widow and unmarried."
Item 5 states that the provisions of item 4 are in lieu of dower, homestead, and all other rights as widow.
The controversy in this case is as to item 6, which reads as follows: " At the death of my said wife, or at her remarriage, I do hereby give and devise a life estate only in my said real estate to my three children, Clara Amanda, Charles Edward, and Frank Bernard, as tenants in common, with remainder over in fee per stirpes to their lawful issue."
Item 7 appoints the wife and one son as executors.
Swante Anderson left surviving him his spouse, Christine Louise Anderson, who died June 12, 1915. He left also surviving him, as his only heirs-at-law, Charles Edward Anderson, Frank Bernard Anderson, and Clara Amanda Anderson, who were his children. Clara Amanda Anderson died testate September 8, 1931, without issue, having never married. By the will of Clara Amanda Anderson, she, after providing for the payment of debts and a small bequest for the care of cemetery lots, devised and bequeathed all her property, real and personal, to Philip Verner Anderson, to be his absolutely and in fee. The said Philip Verner Anderson was not a member of the family, and it appears that he was in no way related to her. This will of Clara Amanda was admitted to probate December 31, 1931. On November 25, 1932, Philip Verner Anderson executed a quit-claim deed to the defendant Frank Bernard Anderson and the plaintiff Charles Edward Anderson, conveying his whole and undivided share, interest, and title in the lands formerly belonging to Swante Anderson.
The defendants Jessie Louis Anderson, Victor Anderson, and John Bernard Anderson are the lawful issue of the defendant Frank Bernard Anderson, the oldest being sixteen years of age. A stipulation filed at the time of the trial states that there had been no other issue or other children than the said three minors born to the defendant Frank Bernard Anderson. The defendants Mary C. Anderson, Lola M. Anderson, Samuel E. Anderson, and Harold I. Anderson are the lawful issue of the plaintiff Charles Edward Anderson, Mary C. Anderson having been born on October 16, 1920, Samuel E. Anderson having been born on June 8, 1924, Harold I. Anderson having been born on July 3, 1927, and Lola M. Anderson having been born on the 30th day of May, 1930. It was stipulated at the time of the trial that they were the only issue of the said Charles Edward Anderson.
Swante Anderson, during his lifetime, had accumulated and left at his death about 439 acres of land, which the three children, by arrangement among themselves, after the death of their father, occupied and used. Parts of this land were sold for taxes, the owners of such certificates being made parties defendant. Other defendants are the Red Oak Trust & Savings Bank, as executor of the estate of Clara Amanda Anderson, and holders of judgment liens.
The two sons of Swante Anderson, Charles Edward and Frank Bernard, occupied the land, but apparently paid rent thereon to their mother during her lifetime.
The plaintiff Charles Edward Anderson, in his petition, claims to be the owner of an undivided one-half of the land as one of the two surviving heirs of Swante Anderson and through the deed from Philip Verner Anderson above referred to; alleges that the fee left to the heirs of the three children of Swante Anderson failed; and asks judgment confirming the shares as claimed in the real estate, for partition, or, in the event that it cannot be equitably divided, that sale be ordered; and for general equitable relief. By separate answer the defendant Frank Bernard Anderson and his wife Maude Anderson make claim to one-half of the real estate.
On June 11, 1933, Floyd E. Billings was duly appointed guardian ad litem for the minor defendants, and for answer and cross-petition on their behalf makes a general denial, especially as to certain parts of the plaintiff's petition, and specifically denies that either the plaintiff Charles Edward or the defendant Frank Bernard is the owner of the fee simple title to the lands claimed by them. He claims for his wards the fee simple title to all of said lands, subject to the life estates of Charles Edward Anderson and Frank Bernard Anderson as tenants in common; denies any lapse of the remainder under the will, and denies that any division the heirs might have made of the real estate is binding on the minors. By cross-petition the guardian ad litem asks for his minors that the court deny the petition, construe the will of Swante Anderson, and determine the interests of said minors.
Trial was had, and on March 24, 1936, the court entered its decree. After finding the facts as above stated, the court found that at the death of the widow there was no lawful issue in being in whom the remainder over could vest and that the remainder lapsed for want of lawful issue to take the title, leaving the testator intestate as to the remainder, and said remainder descending as intestate property the widow took one-third and the children each two-ninths of the remainder over in fee coupled with their life estates; that the widow's one-third descended to the three children, each taking one-ninth. Thus at the death of the widow each of the three children had three-ninths, or one-third, of the real estate. The court found that there was a merger of the life estates and the remainder over and that each of the three children had a fee simple title to an undivided one-third, and that, by conveyance and by the will of Clara Amanda Anderson, there was vested in the other two children, Charles Edward Anderson and Frank Bernard Anderson, an undivided one-half of the real estate, subject to the payment out of Clara Amanda's one-third of her debts. The decree orders partition, sale of the real estate, division among the owners, the appointment of a receiver, and the payment of taxes and judgment liens to be charged against the shares of the respective owners as they may be liable therefor. Afterwards, on March 31, 1936, the decree was amended to correct an erroneous description of real estate in the original decree.
From such decree and amendment an appeal on behalf of the minor defendants was perfected, and the cause is here for determination.
This case was originally submitted on September 18, 1937. On May 10, 1938, a per curiam opinion was filed which showed that three members of the court were disqualified and that the others were equally divided, and by operation of law the case was affirmed. Anderson v. Anderson, Iowa, 279 N.W. 441.Thereafter a rehearing was granted, and the case is now before us on such rehearing.
It is unquestioned by any of the parties that in construing a will the principal concern should be to ascertain and determine the intention of the testator, and that it is the duty of the court, if it be reasonably possible, to give effect to all of the will's provisions. There can be no dispute about this proposition, nor is it necessary that there be a construction where the intention expressed in the will is in clear and unequivocal language. 69 C.J., p. 42, sec. 1110; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 126 Wis. 47, 105 N.W. 216, 217.All rules of construction pertaining to the vesting of estates or interests under a will will yield to the clearly expressed intention of the testator. Thompson on Wills, 2d Ed., p. 449, sec. 361, citing among others, Archer v. Jacobs, 125 Iowa 467, 101 N.W. 195.Such has been the consistent holding of all the cases. See Carpenter v. Lothringer, 224 Iowa 439, 275 N.W. 98, 103.In the latter case it is said: ’ Citing numerous cases, and further stating that: " Where the terms of a will are plain and unambiguous, a construction thereof by a court is unnecessary."
So where the plain meaning of the will is to devise a life estate only, we are bound by the plainly expressed intention of the testator, technical words being used in their technical sense, Canaday v....
To continue reading
Request your trial