Opinion
No. 2-384 / 01-0985.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, JAMES RICHARDSON, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the district court's ruling and final order following our December 13, 2000 decision on direct appeal. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.
Robert Kohorst of Kohorst, Early, Gross Louis, Harlan, for appellant.
James Sulhoff, Avoca and Jacob Peters of Peters Law Firm, P.C., Council Bluffs, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
Donald Felton, an heir of the estate of Paul Felton, appeals from the district court's ruling and final order following our December 13, 2000 decision on direct appeal, which affirmed as modified the district court's original acceptance of the temporary executor's final report, and remanded "for entry of judgment and final distribution of the assets of the estate consistent" with our opinion. In this appeal, Donald claims the court erred in (1) failing to address the unpaid fees of court-appointed accountant, (2) calculating the value of his share of a tractor, (3) requiring him to repay $14,472 to the estate, and (4) denying his out-of-pocket expenses in a farm partnership. We affirm as modified and remand.
I. Background facts and proceedings .
Paul Felton died testate in February 1991. Later that month the will was admitted to probate and the estate was opened. A portion of the assets of the estate was Paul's interest in a farm partnership with Donald. We set forth at length in our original decision the facts leading to the appeal of the temporary executor's report. In re Estate of Felton, No. 98-0426/9-315 (Iowa Ct.App. December 13, 2000). We modified the district court's decision concerning three issues: the ownership of an International Harvester tractor, an apparent miscalculation in distribution of estate assets, and Donald's claim for expenses he paid out-of-pocket in winding down the farm partnership. We found the tractor belonged to Donald, was not an asset of the estate, and ordered it removed from the estate before calculating the final distribution. We found an error in the final distribution of the estate based on how Donald had paid the estate for purchases of estate farm real property, and ordered Donald to repay the estate approximately $14,472. Finally, we allowed Donald's claimed expenses, "to the extent Donald has provided documentation he actually paid such costs himself out-of-pocket, instead of projecting the costs based on information from experts." Id. at 14.
II. District court decision on remand .
On remand, the district court addressed the three modifications in our decision. It removed the prorated value of Donald's tractor from the estate, and ordered the estate to pay him that value plus interest. The court understood our order for Donald to repay $14,472 to the estate to be based on underpayment of real estate contracts. Therefore the court ordered Donald to repay the "underpayment" plus interest. Finally, the court addressed Donald's claim for expenses and,
finds that there is no proof that these out-of-pocket expenses were for the benefit of the estate. The Court further finds that Donald Felton had significant interests in his own livestock at the time of the death of his father, Paul Felton, and after said time, that there is no proof as to these livestock expenses being for the benefit of the estate. Most of them were incurred after the date of disbursal sale of the livestock in this estate, being November of 1991.
Although Donald raised the issue of the unpaid court-ordered accountant fees on remand, the court did not address them in its order. Donald appeals.
III. Analysis .
Our review is de novo. In re Estate of Snapp, 502 N.W.2d 29, 32 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). We give deference to the findings of the district court, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
A. International Harvester Tractor. Donald claims the court's calculation of the value of one-half the tractor miscalculates the pro rata increase in value and computes the period of interest due incorrectly. An appraisal valued the tractor at $10,250 out of total equipment valued at $24,850. The court's original order specifically found the total equipment value to be $26,000, approximately 4.6 percent higher than the appraisal. The pro rata value of the tractor, therefore, was $10,724 (10,250 x (26,000/24,850)). One-half of that value was included as estate property. The court also ordered Donald to pay interest at ten percent from February 8, 1991. We found Donald owned the entire tractor. On remand, the court ordered the estate to repay Donald for one-half the tractor plus interest from February 8, 1991 through March 26, 2001 (3,693 days).
On appeal, Donald argues the correct pro rata value of the tractor was $10,989 because the increase from the appraised value of the machinery was 9.33 percent. We agree with the trial court's calculation. Donald also argues the period for the interest was incorrect, claiming the court previously ordered him to pay interest from January 8, 1991, while the repayment of interest from the estate was ordered from February 8, 1991. Our review of the earlier order reveals Donald was ordered to pay interest from February 8, 1991. We find no error in the court's order on remand concerning repayment of the value of the tractor with interest.
B. Repayment of $14,472.32. Although Donald states his claim as an error of the trial court, his argument really is that this court erred in its decision on the initial appeal. He asks us to correct our earlier decision. A decision of an appellate court "becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case." United Fire Cas. Co. v. Iowa Dist. Court, 612 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa 2000) (citing Springer v. Weeks Leo Co., 475 N.W.2d 630, 632 (Iowa 1991)). We affirm the district court's order on remand on this issue.
C. Out-of-Pocket Expenses. On direct appeal, we allowed Donald's claim for certain out-of-pocket expenses in continuing the Felton Farms partnership "[t]o the extent Donald has provided documentation he actually paid such costs himself out-of-pocket." We remanded this issue to the district court for a determination of the actual amount. On remand, the district court disregarded our decision and disallowed any expenses, finding no proof they were for the benefit of the estate. From our review of the documentation in the record, we allow Donald's out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $8,019.70 plus interest from September 21, 1992 to March 26, 2001 in the amount of $6,762.91.
D. Accountant fees. Although Donald raised this issue before the district court, the court did not rule on it. It was not raised in a rule 1.904(2) motion to amend or enlarge. This claim is not preserved for our review.
IV. Conclusion .
We find no error in the court's order on remand concerning repayment of the value of the tractor with interest and affirm on that issue. We affirm the district court's order on remand on the repayment of $14,472.32 with interest. We modify the court's decision concerning expenses and allow Donald's expenses in the amount of $8,019.70 plus interest. We do not address Donald's claim concerning the accountant's fees as it was not preserved for our review. We remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.