Estate of DeTar, Matter of, 96-0588

• Decision Date: 29 October 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-0588,96-0588
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Marie Brown DeTAR a/k/a Lois Marie Brown, Deceased, Kathleen Jordan, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

Page 178

572 N.W.2d 178

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Marie Brown DeTAR a/k/a Lois Marie Brown, Deceased Kathleen Jordan, Appellant.

No. 96-0588.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Oct. 29, 1997.

Kathleen Jordan, Longmont, CO, pro se, appellant.

Paul M. Goldsmith of Goldsmith Law Firm, Chariton, for appellees Brewer and Spaur, co-administrators of the estate.

Decided en banc.

SACKETT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Kathleen Jordan, one of Marie Brown DeTar's eight children and an heir at law, appeals the trial court's approval of the administrators' final report in Marie's estate. We affirm.

Marie lived in a nursing home and was receiving assistance at the time of her death on February 13, 1994. She died intestate. Her husband, Eli DeTar, not the father of her children, had recently died and Marie had a claim pending against his estate. Ultimately, this claim was settled for about $26,000. Marie's probate inventory includes this claim and reports a net estate, after the payment of debts, of less than $10,000.

Jordan filed a number of objections throughout the probate proceedings, including attacks on the appointment of the administrators, the actions of the judges in the Eighth Judicial District of Iowa, and the work of attorneys, both attorneys for the estate and those involved in other matters.

This appeal concerns Jordan's objections to the January 19, 1995, final report, application for attorney fees, and request for approval of proposed distribution filed by the administrators. Judge Vogel denied Jordan's claims and imposed sanctions against her, finding:

A complete review of the records makes it obvious that there is bitterness in the extreme by Kathleen Jordan aimed at her sisters Carolyn Brewer and Barbara Spaur. It is uncertain just how long that bitterness has existed or how it started but it most certainly commenced prior to July 12, 1991, when Jordan's first objections were filed in the Guardianship and Conservatorship proceedings.

Iowa's Rule of Civil Procedure 80 provides in relevant part, "Counsel's signature to every motion, pleading or other paper shall be deemed a certificate that: Counsel has read the motion, pleading or other paper; that to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause an unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation .... If a motion, pleading or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the motion, pleading, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney fee. The signature of the party who is not represented by counsel shall impose a similar obligation on such party." (Emphasis added.)

The Court now finds that the conduct and numerous filings, complaints and redundancy accomplished by Kathleen Jordan and Evelyn Orwig have been filed for improper purposes, not in good faith, in violation of the spirit of this rule and for the purposes of harassing the Co-Administrators and counsel for the Estate and to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the costs of administering the Estate. Alone, the costs of defending the appeal in the Guardianship and Conservatorship proceedings exceeds Jordan and Orwig's combined expected final distribution from this Estate. In addition, their filings have caused much unnecessary delay and expense. Their portion of the proposed final distribution should be forfeited.

Jordan represents herself in this proceeding. She is not an Iowa lawyer. Iowa law dictates that her brief is judged by the same standard as a brief filed by an Iowa lawyer. See Metropolitan Jacobson Dev. Venture v. Board of Review of Des Moines, 476 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Iowa App.1991). The law does not judge by two standards, one of lawyers and another for non-lawyers. See id. All are expected to act with equal competence. Id. If a non-lawyer chooses to represent herself, she does so at her own risk. Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa App.1995).

The Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the form and manner for briefs filed in the supreme court. Substantial departures from appellate procedures cannot be permitted on the basis that a non-lawyer is handling her own appeal. Simmons v. Brenton Nat'l Bank of Perry, 390 N.W.2d 143, 145 (Iowa App.1986). Jordan, in proceeding without a lawyer, does so at her own risk. Polk County v. Davis, 525 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Iowa App.1994).

Jordan's brief is not in compliance with the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure in a number of ways. The brief fails in nearly all instances to refer to where in the record the claimed errors arose and were preserved for review, and where in the record and the appendix the issues were decided. ¹ Appellees have attempted to address Jordan's challenges to Judge Vogel's order despite Jordan's failures to comply with the Iowa rules.

Such failures can lead to summary disposition of an appeal. Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 239 (Iowa 1974). We are not bound to consider a party's position when the brief fails to comply with the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure. See James v. Rosen, 203 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1972); Olson v. Olson, 180 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1970).

In some situations the court, as a matter of grace, will determine the appeal supplying our own efforts to do so. See Inghram, 215 N.W.2d at 240. We grant Jordan that grace only to the extent we believe we can do so without assuming a partisan role and undertaking her research and advocacy. See id.

Jordan's first contention is that In re Estate of Weidman, 476 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 1991), should be overruled. She contends Weidman extends due process to heirs of estates with wills but not to heirs at law when the decedent dies intestate.

Weidman holds due process requires an executor to give notice by mail to all known or reasonably ascertainable heirs at law of the proceedings and time periods for filing claims. Id. at 361. The holding in Weidman does not suggest an administrator in an intestate estate has a lesser duty to the heirs at law. There is no merit to Jordan's argument on this issue.

Jordan's second contention is the district court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on her. The only reference in Jordan's brief to support her contention is to page two of the transcript where she contends the error occurred. There is no line reference in her brief. Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(a)(5) requires citation to the pertinent parts of the record. Jordan has failed to include the challenged ruling in the appendix. See Iowa R.App. P. 15(a). We have reviewed page two of the transcript. There is no support there for Jordan's contention that the burden of proof was placed on her. There is no basis for Jordan's challenge on this ground.

Jordan's third contention is the judges of the Eighth Judicial District committed judicial error during the administration of this estate. Jordan's brief fails to state how error was preserved and, while alleging nine errors and reciting certain alleged evidence, the brief makes no reference to where in the record this evidence appears and further fails to show where the evidence appears in the appendix. The only reference is to pages 49 to 76 of the transcript in support of her contention that Judge Vogel failed to examine the administrators. Jordan's brief is so deficient on this issue we do not consider this brief point. See Inghram, 215 N.W.2d at 239.

Jordan next contends the district court should not have appointed Barbara Spaur and Carolyn Brewer as co-administrators. Jordan objected to the appointment and after notice to her they were appointed. That order was not appealed from within thirty days of its entry.

Iowa Code section 633.36 provides that "[a]ll orders and decrees of the court sitting in probate are final decrees as to the parties having notice and those who have appeared without notice." See In re Estate of Myers, 269 N.W.2d 127, 128 (Iowa 1978); In re Estate of Jarvis, 185 N.W.2d 753, 756 (Iowa 1971). No appeal being taken within thirty days of the order appointing the administrators, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Iowa R.App....