Kruse's Estate, Matter of, 2--57751

Decision Date16 February 1977
Docket NumberNo. 2--57751,2--57751
PartiesIn the Matter of the ESTATE of Leonard J. KRUSE, Deceased. Raymond KRUSE, Beneficiary Under the Last Will and Testament of Leonard J. Kruse, Deceased, Appellant, v. Robert KINRADE, Executor of the Estate of Leonard J. Kruse, Deceased, Appellee.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Shaff, Farwell & Senneff by Jerry D. Van Scoy, Clinton, for appellant.

Goodenow & Wright, Maquoketa, for appellee.

Heard by MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REYNOLDSON, and HARRIS, JJ.

RAWLINGS, Justice.

Upon application of estate executor for interpretation of a will, trial court held the option thereby accorded a named devisee to purchase one-half of a designated farm required payment of the value placed on such portional part, not one-fourth the worth of the entire farm. The devisee appeals. We affirm.

October 3, 1973, Leonard J. Kruse died testate. His will was admitted to probate without challenge.

Article 6 thereof provides:

'I give and devise to my cousin, Raymond Kruse, an undivided one-half interest in and to my farm commonly known as the 'Dickey Place'.

'I further provide, as soon as practical after the value has been determined as herein provided, that The remaining one-half of my farm shall be offered for sale to my cousin, Raymond Kruse for a price equal to one-half of the value placed on said property in my estate for Federal Estate Tax or Iowa Inheritance Tax purposes, whichever is higher. This offer must be accepted in writing by my said cousin within 90 days after he receives a written notice of such offer to sell from my estate representative. Payment thereof in the event of such acceptance is to be made to my estate within six months after the date such written acceptance has been received by my estate representative and filed in my estate proceedings.' (emphasis supplied).

The above italicized words constitute the battle ground of this controversy.

Value of the 'Dickey Place' was fixed at $166,200 for both Iowa Inheritance and Federal Estate Tax purposes.

Raymond Kruse (Raymond) asserts he should be permitted to exercise his will-granted purchase right on payment of $41,550 or one-half the value of the option-related half.

The executor maintains Raymond's given option should be exercisable only upon payment of $83,100 or half the value of the entire farm.

Absent any extrinsic evidence trial court held adverse to the claim thus advanced by Raymond. This prompted the instant appeal. The foregoing divergent views also delineate the sole issue now to be resolved, i.e., did testator, by use of the words 'on said property in my estate', mean the preceding 'remaining one-half of my farm', or the previously designated 'Dickey Place'?

I. Our review is de novo. See Houts v. Jameson, 201 N.W.2d 466, 468 (Iowa 1972); Section 633.33, The Code 1973; Iowa R.Civ.P. 334, 344(f)(7).

II. It is also well settled:

'The basic rules governing our consideration of this will are: (1) the testator's intent is the polestar and must prevail; (2) the Intent must be gathered from a consideration of all the language of the will, the scheme of distribution, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the will; and (3) technical rules of construction should be resorted to only if the language of the will is clearly ambiguous or conflicting or testator's intent is for any reason uncertain.' (emphasis supplied). In re Estate of Spencer, 232 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1975).

See also In re Estate of Fairley, 159 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Iowa 1968).

III. As expressed in 77 C.J.S., at 551--552, 'said' is:

'A relative, well-defined word, with a definite and well-understood meaning. It is a word of reference to what has already been spoken of or specified, and, as employed in various instruments and documents, it refers to some antecedent provision, person, or object; something which has been mentioned above...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Kalouse's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1979
    ...the testatorial intention. 80 Am.Jur.2d Wills § 1410. See also Elkader Production Credit Ass'n v. Eulberg, supra ; Matter of Estate of Kruse, 250 N.W.2d 432 (Iowa 1977); Houts v. Jameson, 201 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 1972). We should also consider a somewhat narrower but none-the-less general princ......
  • Herm's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1979
    ...Iowa 61, 65, 126 N.W.2d 332, 334 (1964); In re Estate of Hermence, 235 Iowa 745, 748, 15 N.W.2d 905, 907 (1944); Cf. In re Estate of Kruse, 250 N.W.2d 432, 433 (Iowa 1977) (review of decree interpreting will is de novo). Trial court's findings of fact are binding on this court if supported ......
  • Shelby County State Bank v. Van Diest Supply Co., 01-2250.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • September 17, 2002
    ... ...         As a linguistic matter, therefore, the sentence is ambiguous. As both the Supreme Court and Iowa ... 324, 330, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993); In re: Kruse's Estate, 250 N.W.2d 432, 433-34 (Iowa 1977). Unless one always followed a rigid ... ...
  • Estate of Kiel, In re
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1984
    ...which, with two judges dissenting, reversed the trial court. We granted further review. I. Our review is de novo. Matter of Estate of Kruse, 250 N.W.2d 432, 433 (Iowa 1977). In a de novo review we make findings of fact anew; however, when considering the credibility of witnesses, we give we......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT