Opinion
No. 5-952 / 05-0173
Filed February 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, James Q. Blomgren, Judge.
Appellant challenges (1) the district court's approval of the auction sale of the deceased's home and (2) the district court's refusal to remove the estate's administrator. AFFIRMED.
Garold F. Heslinga of Heslinga, Heslinga, Dixon Moore, Oskaloosa, for appellee.
Perry Kerr, Boone, appellant pro se.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Terri Ann Baltimore died in January 2001. She was survived by two sons, Shad Baltimore and Perry Kerr. Mr. Baltimore was appointed as the administrator of his mother's estate. Mr. Baltimore and Mr. Kerr have been at odds throughout much of the administration of this estate, and concerning numerous issues. This appeal concerns Mr. Kerr's unsuccessful attempts (1) to block approval of the sale of his mother's house at an auction in August 2004 and (2) to remove Mr. Baltimore as the estate's administrator. After our review of the issues properly presented for our consideration, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Standard of Review.
Although the district court stated the dispute would be tried as a law action, these issues are normally tried in equity. See Iowa Code § 633.33 (2003). We elect to review this matter de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Although we find facts anew, we give great weight to the findings of fact made by the district court. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g).
Challenge to Auction.
Regarding the attempt to block approval of the auction sale of the house, we find no basis to grant relief to Mr. Kerr. The court approved the sale of the house by auction. Mr. Kerr was present at the first auction in June 2004 but did not bid, apparently because he had no money. He also told an individual in attendance at the auction not to bid. Due to problems associated with the advertisement of the auction, the administrator did not seek approval of the sale but scheduled a new auction for August 23, 2004. This second auction, which was properly advertised, was attended by Mr. Kerr, Mr. Baltimore, and a third participant, a local real estate agent. Prior to the August auction, a number of people inspected the home. At the auction, Mr. Baltimore bid $20,000, the third participant raised the bid to $25,000, and Mr. Baltimore countered with a bid of $26,000. Mr. Kerr did not bid, stating he had filed a motion to delay the auction. The third participant declined to bid further, and Mr. Baltimore was the successful bidder.
From our review of his brief, Mr. Kerr apparently presents two arguments against the approval of the auction. First, he asserts the auction price was far below the assessed value of the property. Based on the present facts, this assertion does not entitle Mr. Kerr to relief. The August auction was proper in form, resulted in significant buyer interest, provided Mr. Kerr an opportunity to bid on the house, and saw an outside participant engage in bidding. To the extent the outside participant stopped bidding because of an unwillingness to become involved in a family dispute, we conclude this is most likely a result of Mr. Kerr's actions at the auction. Second, he asserts he wished to purchase the home and an auction was unnecessary. This argument is unpersuasive. During the period between the two auctions, Mr. Baltimore's counsel sent a letter to Mr. Kerr's counsel indicating the estate was willing to sell the house to Mr. Kerr for the price Mr. Kerr had previously offered. Mr. Kerr did not accept this offer, necessitating the auction.
The August 2004 auction may have been contentious, but it was sufficiently fair. No sufficient reason exists for denying approval of the resulting sale. Cf. Thornton v. Estate of Thorton, 561 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa Ct.App. 1986). We affirm the district court's order approving the sale.
Removal of Administrator.
Mr. Kerr's request to remove Shad Baltimore as the administrator of the Terri Ann Baltimore estate has two bases: self-dealing and hostility. Decisions on whether to remove an administrator are generally committed to the district court's "broad discretion." Estate of Randeris v. Randeris, 525 N.W.2d 600, 605 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). After our review of the present record, neither basis is sufficient to remove the administrator.
Although estate administrators are generally prohibited from self-dealing, see Iowa Code § 633.155, Mr. Baltimore's purchase of an asset of the estate under his administration at a public auction after notice to Mr. Kerr is proper. See, e.g., In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Jordan, 616 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Iowa 2000). The district court found and concluded Mr. Baltimore engaged in no impermissible self-dealing, and we agree.
Regarding the hostility between Mr. Baltimore and Mr. Kerr, we, like the district court, acknowledge it exists. In certain circumstances, "unwarranted hostility" may justify removal of an administrator. Estate of Randeris, 523 N.W.2d at 606. We, like the district court, do not see how the hostility was such that Mr. Baltimore must be removed. Our de novo review of the record indicates Mr. Baltimore sufficiently discharged his duties, in spite of any ill will he had toward Mr. Kerr. Mr. Kerr's assertion of hostility by the administrator is belied by the administrator's offer before the second auction to sell the house based on terms substantially similar to those Mr. Kerr had initially proposed.
We cannot conclude Mr. Baltimore was an "unsuitable" administrator of the Terri Ann Baltimore estate, see In re Estate of Heller, 401 N.W.2d 602, 609 (Iowa Ct.App. 1986), either due to self-dealing or hostility. We affirm the district court's denial of the application to remove him as administrator.
Conclusion.
We have considered all issues presented and affirm the judgment of the district court.