Kalsem v. Froland

• Decision Date: 20 November 1928
• Docket Number: 39241
• Citation: 222 N.W. 3,207 Iowa 994
• Parties: JOHN F. KALSEM, Appellant, v. RUTH FROLAND et al., Appellants; HANS FROLAND et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

222 N.W. 3

207 Iowa 994

JOHN F. KALSEM, Appellant, v. RUTH FROLAND et al., Appellants; HANS FROLAND et al., Appellees

No. 39241

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

November 20, 1928

REHEARING DENIED MARCH 8, 1929.

Appeal from Story District Court.--H. E. FRY, Judge.

Suit in equity, brought by the plaintiff, both in his individual capacity and in his capacity of administrator of the estate of his deceased wife. In his own behalf, he prays for an admeasurement of his distributive share. As administrator, he prays for an order to sell the real estate, for the payment of debts, and to distribute the balance of the proceeds among the three children of the deceased wife. He also prays to quiet the title of the deceased in the real estate, as against certain other defendants named. The three children of the deceased, who were named as defendants, filed a cross-petition against their codefendants, who are the stepchildren of the deceased. The stepchildren set up a defense, to the effect that, under and by virtue of an antenuptial contract between the deceased and her first husband, the father of these stepchildren, each of such stepchildren was to take a child's share in the property of the deceased. Such is the general nature of the controversy. The decree awarded dower to the plaintiff, and ordered the property sold for the payment of debts, as prayed. Such decree also awarded to each of the stepchildren of the deceased a child's share in the residue of her estate. All parties aggrieved by this latter provision of the decree have appealed.

Affirmed.

Lee Steinberg & Walsh and Harry Langland, for appellants.

Welty Soper & Welty, for appellees.

EVANS, J. STEVENS, C. J., and FAVILLE, KINDIG, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

I. The deceased wife of the plaintiff was formerly the wife of Nels Froland, whom she married in 1907. Froland was at that time a widower, with nine children, and was the owner of property to the value of $ 25,000, including the farm of 173 acres upon which he lived. Prior to the marriage, the parties entered into an antenuptial contract, and upon this contract the controversy turns. Such contract was the following:

"We, the undersigned, agree to marry each other on the following condition: I, Nels Froland, agree to marry Ragnhild Helgevold, upon her agreeing as follows to wit she agrees that the children that I, Nels Froland, now have, is hereby adopted by her as her own; that said children shall have the same right of inheritance in her property at her death, as if they were her natural born children; that she will act as a dutiful and loving mother to said children; that her right in my property shall be the same as is now recognized between husband and wife under the laws of Iowa; that in case of separation granted by any court on petition of Ragnhild Helgevold, her interest and property right in the property that I now own together with her right in the children, shall be at an end; and that alimony shall not be allowed her on application by her for separation if such be the case; that at the time of my death if she survives me this contract shall be filed for record, that for the faithful performance of the duties specified in this contract, a lien is hereby created against Ragnhild Helgevold's interest in my property both real and personal, and to remain as a lien until released by the children; that is to say in case she survives me.

"Nels H. Froland.

"I, Ragnhild Helgevold, bind myself to this contract and declare to and accept said terms, in consideration that Nels Froland marry me.

"Ragnhild x Helgevold.

"Witnesses to this contract:

"Rev. H. J. Holman

"Gertie H. Richardson

"Under the terms in the foregoing contract we were married this 6 day of March A. D. 1907."

Two children were born as the fruit of this marriage. In 1910, Froland died, survived by his wife and eleven children. Administration of his estate was had, and his widow received her widow's share, including exempt property and temporary support. In 1920, the widow married the plaintiff herein. One child, Marion John Kalsem, named as defendant herein, was the fruit of this marriage. Ruth and Lillian Froland, named as defendants, were the surviving daughters of the deceased, and the fruit of her first marriage. These three defendants here named, by cross-petition claimed all the residue of their mother's estate, to the exclusion of the stepchildren. The appellants challenge the validity and efficacy of the antenuptial contract on the following grounds:

"1. The same was one-sided, unfair, and unconscionable.

"2. The same was drawn to protect fully the interest of Nels Froland, but contained no provision whereby the interest of Ragnihild Kalsem was protected.

"3. The contract provided that the children of Nels Froland should inherit from the said deceased, but did not provide that she should inherit from said children.

"4. The same attempted to effect an adoption in a manner contrary to the requirements of the statute.

"5. The said contract expressly provided that, regardless of the treatment that the deceased should receive from Nels Froland, she could only apply for a divorce or a separate maintenance at the peril of forfeiture of all her earnings, or forfeiting all her rights under the marriage in the property of Nels Froland, and forfeiting the rights to alimony, suit money, separate maintenance, and her rights in the children.

"6. The deceased, Ragnihild Kalsem, was young, inexperienced, and unacquainted with American customs, laws, and legal rights of a married woman, and did not understand said contract; and if said contract is to be interpreted as an attempt to adoption, the same is void because no legal steps were ever taken whereby the answering defendants were in fact adopted, and whereby the deceased acquired any legal rights to the service of the answering defendant, or the custody, or acquired any right to inheritance from them; and, the consideration having failed on the part of the answering defendants, it would be inequitable to enforce the contract in their behalf."

They also challenge the same as ineffective as an article of adoption on the ground that it did not conform to the requirements of the statute for the purpose of adoption.

The parties to the contract were natives of Norway. At the time of her marriage, the wife had been in this country two years, and had worked in the Froland family as a domestic for one year. She was 27 years of age, and he was 49 years. The contract was reduced to writing, both in English and Norwegian. Both the English and Norwegian copies or duplicates were signed. The contention that there was no consideration for the contract in the form in which it was drawn, cannot be sustained. The...