Hahn v. Dunn
Decision Date | 13 January 1931 |
Docket Number | 40400 |
Citation | 234 N.W. 247,211 Iowa 678 |
Parties | H. F. HAHN et al., Appellants, v. JOSEPH DUNN et al., Appellees |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.--F. O. ELLISON, Judge.
This was a proceeding in equity, brought by the plaintiffs to first, quiet in themselves the title to certain real estate and second, partition the same. Such realty was formerly owned by Clarence E. Hahn, deceased, and by him, through a last will and testament, devised to his wife, Katherine M Hahn, who later died. The relief was denied by the district court, and plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed.
E. A. Johnson, for appellants.
Rhinehart & McLaughlin, for appellees.
KINDIG, J. FAVILLE, C. J., and EVANS, STEVENS, DE GRAFF, ALBERT, MORLING, WAGNER, and GRIMM, JJ., concur.
On August 2, 1928, Clarence E. Hahn executed his last will and testament. So far as material, that instrument contained the following provisions:
Clarence E. Hahn, the aforesaid testator, died in Linn County December 30, 1928, survived by his wife, the above-named devisee, Katherine M. Hahn. Within three days thereafter, the devisee died, on January 2, 1929. No children survived the testator, Clarence E. Hahn. His will, previously set forth, was duly admitted to probate in the district court of Linn County. Jacob Manstrup and Sam James were appointed administrators with the will annexed. Katherine M. Hahn, the surviving wife of the testator, during her lifetime did nothing affirmatively indicating that she accepted the terms of her husband's will. At the time of his death, the testator owned 80 acres of land in Linn County and certain personal property. The plaintiff-appellants H. F. Hahn and Philip Hahn are brothers of the testator, Clarence E. Hahn, and the plaintiff-appellant Ella Hoodmacher is his sister.
Like her husband before her, Katherine M. Hahn died testate. In her will, the defendants and appellees herein were named devisees and legatees. Hence, the contest here is between the husband's relatives, on the one hand, and the devisees and legatees under the wife's will, on the other.
Appellants contend that the wife, Katherine M. Hahn, did not elect to take the devise under her husband's will, and therefore she received only her statutory one-third distributive share in the said real estate. Furthermore, appellants claim that they are entitled to the other two thirds of such property. To obtain that two-thirds interest, the present proceedings were instituted by the appellants, wherein they ask that their title in and to the property be quieted in themselves, and that the land be partitioned accordingly. An attack was made upon appellants' petition filed for such relief, by a motion to dismiss. Appellees, under their motion to dismiss, insist that all the husband's property through the will was devised and bequeathed to the wife, and therefore the necessity of electing did not arise. Continuing their contention at this point, appellees argue that the provisions of the will must be inconsistent with the wife's statutory right, before she is required to elect between her distributive share and the devise in the will, and, there being no such incompatibility in the Clarence E. Hahn will, his wife need not elect. That, in a general way, suggests the conflicting views expressed by the litigants.
A solution of the problem thus presented will be found in the statutory provisions applicable, as interpreted by this court. Those statutory provisions, so far as material, are contained in the following sections of the 1927 Code:
Following the foregoing are provisions enabling those representing a mentally incapable spouse to make the necessary election for the incompetent.
When the gift provided by the husband's will is in lieu of her distributive share, the wife must elect to take under the will, or the law decides that she retains her distributive share instead of the benefits provided for her in the will. Ross v. Alleghany Theological Seminary, 204 Iowa 648, 215 N.W. 710; In re Estate of Culbertson, 204 Iowa 473, 215 N.W. 761; Peckenschneider v. Schnede, 210 Iowa 656, 227 N.W. 335. The Peckenschneider case is important in this discussion. Hence, an elaborate quotation is made therefrom. We, among other things, there said:
For all material purposes, the discussion in the Peckenschneider case applies with equal force and effect to the point now being considered in the case at bar. Said Peckenschneider decision, therefore, controls the proposition now under consideration.
An election may be made in writing or in open court, under Section 12007, above quoted; but that method of making an election, under some circumstances, is not exclusive. At least, if the foregoing statutory notice required by Section 12007 is not served as above authorized, the election may be evidenced by words or acts outside of court. Concerning this, we used the following language in In re Estate of Culbertson (204 Iowa 473, 215 N.W. 761), supra, on page 485:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Winston's Will.Winston v. Fitch.
...of all the facts concerning the properties.” (Syllabi.) The cases are collected in an annotation following Hahn et al. v. Dunn, 211 Iowa, 678, 234 N.W. 247, 82 A.L.R. 1503, annotation, 1509. [6] The executrix in the case at bar not only had the advice of claimant as to her rights, but consu......
- Hahn v. Dunn