Van Stelton v. Jerry Van Stelton, Donna Van Stelton, Eugene Van Stelton, Gary Christians, Doug Weber, Scott Gries, Nate Krikke, Robert E. Hansen, Daniel Dekoter, Osceola Cnty., Iowa, & Dekoter, Thole & Dawson, P.C.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. C11-4045-MWB,C11-4045-MWB
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
• Parties: VIRGIL VAN STELTON, CAROL VAN STELTON, AND ALVIN VAN STELTON, Plaintiffs, v. JERRY VAN STELTON, DONNA VAN STELTON, EUGENE VAN STELTON, GARY CHRISTIANS, DOUG WEBER, SCOTT GRIES, NATE KRIKKE, ROBERT E. HANSEN, DANIEL DEKOTER, OSCEOLA COUNTY, IOWA, AND DEKOTER, THOLE AND DAWSON, P.C. Defendants.

VIRGIL VAN STELTON, CAROL VAN STELTON,AND ALVIN VAN STELTON, Plaintiffs, v. JERRY VAN STELTON, DONNA VAN STELTON,EUGENE VAN STELTON, GARY CHRISTIANS, DOUG WEBER,SCOTT GRIES, NATE KRIKKE, ROBERT E. HANSEN,DANIEL DEKOTER, OSCEOLA COUNTY, IOWA, AND DEKOTER,THOLE AND DAWSON, P.C. Defendants.

No. C11-4045-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

September 30, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..............................................3

A. Factual Background...............................................................3

1. The parties...................................................................3

2. The Law Firm's involvement in the Trust.............................4

3. State court litigation.......................................................6

4. County defendants' actions concerning Margaret...................7

5. State court litigation.......................................................8

6. Virgil's arrest...............................................................9

7. Virgil's tape recorder....................................................13

B. Procedural Background.........................................................13

II. LEGAL ANALSYIS......................................................................15

A. Summary Judgment Standards.................................................15

B. Section 1983 Claims..............................................................18

1. Requirements for § 1983 claim........................................182. Under color of state law requirement.................................20

3. Section 1983 claims against the County defendants...............23

a. First Amendment claims ........................................23

i. Virgil's arrest.............................................24

ii. Family association.......................................24

b. Fourth Amendment claims.....................................26

i. Virgil's warrantless arrest..............................26

ii. Search of tape recorder.................................29

c. Fifth Amendment claims........................................32

d. Fourteenth Amendment claims ................................32

e. Constitutional claims against Osceola County..............34

C. State Law Claims.................................................................34

1. False arrest................................................................35

a. Requirements for false arrest claim ..........................35

b. The County defendants .........................................36

c. The Law Firm defendants ......................................36

d. Van Stelton defendants .........................................37

2. Malicious prosecution ...................................................39

a. Requirements for malicious prosecution claim.............39

b. Analysis of claims................................................41

3. Defamation ................................................................ 41

a. Requirements for defamation claims .........................41

b. Analysis of claims................................................44

4. Breach of fiduciary duty................................................45

a. Requirements of breach of fiduciary duty claims..........45

b. Analysis of claims................................................45

i. The Law Firm defendants..............................46

ii. The Van Stelton defendants ...........................46

5. Interference with prospective business advantage..................51

a. Requirements for claim .........................................51

b. Analysis of claim.................................................52

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 53

Plaintiffs brought a panoply of claims against defendants, including claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.; and pendent state law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, slander and libel, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. I granted portions of defendants' motions to dismiss for failing to adequately state viable claims under Federal or Iowa law. Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs resist defendants' motions, asserting that a reasonable jury could find in their favor on all of their remaining claims.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

I set out only those facts, disputed and undisputed, sufficient to put in context the parties' arguments concerning the defendants' motions for summary judgment and resistances to them. At least for the purposes of summary judgment, the facts recited here are undisputed.¹ I will discuss additional factual allegations, and the extent to which they are or are not disputed or material, if necessary, in my legal analysis.

1. The parties

Plaintiffs Virgil Van Stelton and his wife, plaintiff Carol Van Stelton, are residents of Iowa. They both live in Sibley, Iowa, which is located in Osceola County. PlaintiffAlvin Van Stelton is also a resident of Iowa. He lives in Ashton, Iowa, which is also located in Osceola County. Defendants Jerry Van Stelton, Donna Van Stelton, and Eugene Van Stelton are residents of Iowa, all living in Sibley. Virgil, Alvin, Jerry, and Eugene are brothers. Jacob Van Stelton and Margaret Van Stelton were their father and step-mother.

Defendants Gary Christians, Doug Weber, Scott Gries, Nate Krikke, Robert E. Hansen, and Daniel E. DeKoter are also residents of Iowa. Weber is the Osceola County Sheriff. Hansen is the Osceola County Attorney. DeKoter is an attorney in private practice in Sibley, Iowa. He has worked for the same law firm, now called DeKoter, Thole, and Dawson, P.L.C. ("the Law Firm"), for thirty-three years. He and Harold D. Dawson are partners in the Law Firm. Dawson also was one member of a seven-person panel that recommends salary rates for elected officials in Osceola County. DeKoter is legal counsel for the Osceola County Economic Development Commission. The Osceola County Economic Development Commission provides economic development funds to business interests in Osceola County through banks in Sibley.

2. The Law Firm's involvement in the Trust

In his practice, DeKoter represented Margaret Van Stelton, the stepmother of Virgil, Alvin, Jerry, and Eugene Van Stelton, regarding the management of her personal affairs. These affairs included a revocable trust ("the Trust") established by her and her late husband, Jacob Van Stelton.² Prior to March 29, 2007, the Trust property included farmland, annuities, and cash from rents paid to the trustees for the farmland. The cash rents were paid to Margaret as income. During her lifetime, Margaret remained competent to manage the Trust's assets in her role as the Trust grantor. While DeKoter represented Margaret with regard to management of the Trust, DeKoter did not have anattorney-client relationship with any of the Van Stelton brothers regarding their interest in the Trust.

On March 23, 2007, Sheriff Weber received a report that Virgil was harassing Margaret while she was living in the Viola home. Virgil was reported a second time for harassing Margaret on May 7, 2008, while she resided at County View Manor. DeKoter did not instigate, incite, or direct the complaining witnesses to make these reports to the Osceola County Sheriff's office.

On March 29, 2007, DeKoter had a meeting with Margaret, at her apartment in the Viola Home in Sibley, Iowa. The meeting concerned the removal of Alvin as a trustee of the Trust. When DeKoter arrived at Margaret's apartment, Alvin was there. When asked to leave so that DeKoter and Margaret could speak privately, Alvin initially left but then burst back into the room and told Margaret not to remove him as a trustee.

As one of three co-trustees of the Trust, Alvin's signature was required to transfer family lands from the Trust to the four Van Stelton brothers, in equal shares. This transfer was consistent with Margaret's wishes and the terms of the Trust. Alvin refused to sign the required deeds to complete the transfer. As a result, Alvin was removed as a co-trustee so that the transfer could be completed. After Alvin was removed as a trustee, all of the family lands held in the Trust were deeded to Virgil, Alvin, Jerry, and Eugene in equal shares, and all of the family lands that were held by Jacob in a life estate were also transferred to Virgil, Alvin, Jerry, and Eugene. Subsequently, all of the family land was titled in the four brothers' names as tenants in common.

In addition to ensuring that the family lands were transferred to the four Van Stelton brothers after Jacob's death, DeKoter drafted an amendment to the Trust, at Margaret's request. Under this amendment, the cash remaining in the Trust at the time of Margaret's death would not be given in equal shares to the four brothers but instead would be given to just Virgil and Alvin. Jerry and Eugene were excluded from thistransfer. The amendment was to compensate Virgil and Alvin for their claim that the rents for the family land were underpaid by Jerry and Eugene. Margaret also made cash gifts to Virgil and Alvin.

After the family lands were transferred to the four Van Stelton brothers in March, 2007, Alvin and Virgil filed a claim against the Trust. On October 3, 2007, Alvin and Virgil's claim was disallowed and they were advised that their claim would be "forever barred unless suit is filed against the trustee to enforce the claim within thirty days of the date of this notice of disallowance." Letter at 2; Law Firm Defendants' Appendix at 347. After the claim was denied, litigation ensued over the proper partition of the property and the right to farm the land.

3. State court litigation

On October...