From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nelson v. Nelson

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 12, 2005
707 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 5-576 / 04-1020

Filed October 12, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adair County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.

Patricia Lewis appeals the district court's summary judgment order dismissing her petition to quiet title. AFFIRMED.

Robert E. Feilmeyer of Taylor, Feilmeyer Wendl, P.L.C., Guthrie Center, for appellant.

Roy M. Irish of Patterson, Lorentzen, Duffield, Timmons, Irish, Becker Ordway, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee.

Bruce H. Stoltze of Brick, Gentry, Bowers, Swartz, Stoltze, Schuling Levis, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.


Patricia Lewis appeals the district court's summary judgment order dismissing her petition to quiet title. She argues that (1) the district court erred when it denied her petition to quiet title to land under a will and (2) the oral agreement that settled the ownership of the land in question was embodied in a judicial order rather than the transcript of the agreement. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

This is a continuing chapter in the saga of this familial dispute over a will. In October 1998 Louie Nelson exercised a power of appointment under his late wife Audrey's will. Audrey's will granted various portions of land to her heirs. Those heirs include the appellant, Patricia Lewis, and the appellees, collectively referred to as the Nelsons. After a series of legal disputes over Louie's exercise of appointment power, the land was partitioned by judicial order on December 2, 1999. After nearly two more years of legal wrangling over the fruits of Audrey's will, the parties came to an oral settlement on May 14, 2001, which was fortunately recorded in a written transcript. The relevant portion reads as follows:

Second primary point is that the interests of Patricia Lewis under Audrey Nelson's last will and testament will be partitioned and consolidated into 67 acres of what is known as the Church Place.

. . . .

Regarding the individual matters, Your Honor, there were two judgments in the partition. The December 2, '99 as well as the June 19, 2000. Our understanding is that the affect of those will be carried out with Patricia's interest consolidated in the south 67 acres of the Church Place.

By October, the parties were at it again. The district court sought to embody the transcript agreement in a judicial order dated October 11, 2001. The relevant portion of that order states as follows:

The Court finds that the proposed settlement agreement attached to the Motion fully and fairly states the agreement of the parties made of record on May 14, 2001, before the undersigned judge.

. . . .

5. The interests of Patty Lewis under Audrey Nelson's will, to the south 67 acres of the real estate commonly referred to as the Church Place shall be partitioned off and sold, by Quit Claim Deed, free of all known liens to Donald Nelson and Richard Nelson in equal shares.

One of the Nelsons' attorneys had asked the district court to clarify its ruling on the settlement agreement in a previous oral hearing. The transcript of that hearing reads:

MR. ROSS: Are you saying that the transcript is the agreement or this document Mr. Leitner [Lewis's attorney] attached to his motion?

THE COURT: The transcript.

MR. ROSS: Because they're different.

THE COURT: I don't think they are.

The exhibit attached to Mr. Leitner's motion consists of the same language as the October 11, 2001, judicial order above.

We note the parties had previously appealed the issue of the presence of an agreement between them to the court of appeals. We concluded that an agreement existed on May 14, 2001, between the parties. Our August 14, 2002, decision is reproduced as follows:

On May 14, 2001 the parties to this and other long-standing and acrimonious disputes among the members of the Nelson and Lewis families reached a settlement of all outstanding litigation. The terms of the settlement were dictated into the record before the Honorable Peter A. Keller in open court. Efforts to reduce the settlement terms to writing failed. In August 2001, Patty Lewis and Louie Nelson filed a motion seeking an order in conformance with the settlement terms. No resistance was filed. Hearing was held on the motion on September 24, 2001, and each attorney was given ample opportunity to argue his position. For the first time, Donald, Richard, and Mary Nelson argued no settlement was reached on May 14. At the conclusion, Judge Keller determined a settlement had been reached, and the writing attached to the motion conformed to the settlement terms. He stated,

At the time of the hearing where the record was made, the Court had an understanding that the cases were settled. That is my recollection. Since that time I've reviewed the transcript and the proposed agreement that's attached to the motion of Mr. Leitner and I do now find that there is an agreement. The motion is granted, it will be a self-executing order.

We review for errors at law. Wende v. Orv Rocker Ford Lincoln Mercury, 530 N.W.2d 92, 95 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). The trial court's fact findings have the force of a jury verdict. Id.
Review of the entire record clearly indicates a settlement was reached on May 14, 2001. It should be enforced.

AFFIRMED.

In re Irrevocable Trust Agreement of Nelson, No. 01-1871 (Iowa Ct.App. Aug. 14, 2002) (emphasis added).

While that case was being considered in our court, Lewis brought this action to quiet title in January 2002. She essentially claims that, under the May 14, 2001, settlement agreement and the subsequent October 11, 2001, order, she retains all of her interest in land under Audrey's will except for a one-sixth interest in the sixty-seven acres of Church Place. The Nelsons filed for summary judgment on Lewis's claim and counterclaimed for performance of the May 14, 2001, settlement and the subsequent October 11, 2001, order. They claim that under the settlement agreement, all of Lewis's interests under Audrey's will have been consolidated in the sixty-seven acres of Church Place. The district court granted summary judgment for the Nelsons on August 3, 2003. The district court stated:

This suit is the latest chapter in the long running saga of litigation that has been a family sport for the parties for several years now. This particular suit seeks quiet title with respect to various real estate located in Adair County, Iowa. The real estate is the same real estate as was described in and the ownership and partition of which was litigated in Adair County case EQCV 004155. In that litigation, Patricia Lewis was found and determined to be the owner of a parcel containing 67 acres more or less located south of a line as described in the court's judgment entry.

Subsequently, suits were filed in Guthrie County (TRPR012733 and TRPR012734) over various trust accounting issues. That suit resulted in a court order entered October 11, 2001, which incorporated and enforced a settlement agreement between the various parties that had been dictated of record in a hearing on May 14, 2001.

The parties expended considerable energy arguing about whether or not the court order of October 11, 2001, accurately reflects the settlement agreement dictated on May 14, 2001. This court does not see any discrepancies between the two, at least insofar as Patricia Lewis is concerned.

. . . .

Patricia Nelson has no claim to assert in this case. She has litigated this issue before, appealed it and then dismissed that appeal as part of a settlement in a second case that was appealed and affirmed. She has not just bitten the apple, she has consumed it core and all. Her ownership interests in the real estate have been fully and finally adjudicated and she is precluded from litigating the issue again. The motion for summary judgment as to Patricia Lewis should be sustained.

(Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.)

Lewis filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. The district court denied both motions on September 3, 2003. In a subsequent and separate hearing, the district court found for the Nelsons in their counterclaim, ordering Lewis to execute a quit claim deed for one hundred percent of the sixty-seven acres to her brothers Richard and Donald Nelson. Lewis did not appeal the decision in the counterclaim. In addition, she deeded the entire sixty-seven acres to her brothers. Lewis only appeals the summary judgment dismissing her petition to quiet title.

In a deed dated of record June 24, 2004, Lewis conveyed the entire sixty-seven acres to Richard and Donald Nelson subject to appeal. In her notice of appeal to this court, Lewis cited both the district court's denial of her motion for a new trial and its decision in the counterclaim. However, she does not appeal the decision in the counterclaim or the denial of her motion for a new trial. She neither stated nor argued these issues in her brief. We therefore conclude they are waived pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.14(1)( c). Pierce v. Staley, 587 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1998) ("When a party, in an appellate brief, fails to state, argue, or cite authority in support of an issue, the issue may be deemed waived."); Hubby v. State, 331 N.W.2d 690, 694 (Iowa 1983) ("Moreover, issues are deemed waived or abandoned when they are not stated on appeal by brief; random discussion of difficulties, unless assigned as an issue, will not be considered.").

II. Standard of Review

We review the district court's summary judgment of a case in equity for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Keokuk Junction Ry. Co. v. IES Indus., Inc., 618 N.W.2d 352, 355 (Iowa 2000). We are to examine the entire record, including pleadings, discovery, and affidavits, in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Keokuk Junction Ry. Co., 618 N.W.2d at 355. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Estate of Harris v. Papa John's Pizza, 679 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2004). There is a genuine issue present if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Meade v. Ries, 642 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 2002). Only when a fact is outcome determinative will it be considered material. Id.

III. Merits

Lewis argues that summary judgment on behalf of the Nelsons was inappropriate. Essentially, her argument rests on the absence of the word "consolidated" in the provision of the October 11, 2001, order pertaining to her interests in the sixty-seven acres of Church Place. She argues she is only obligated to turn over a one-sixth interest in the sixty-seven acres of Church Place as given to her in Audrey's will.

We agree that with respect to this issue, Lewis has had her bite at the proverbial apple. In the October 11, 2001, order the district court found that the parties' agreement occurred on May 14, 2001. We affirmed that decision the first time this case came to this court.

When interpreting the language of an agreement, we are to look first to the language of the agreement to see if any ambiguity exists. Hartford-Carlisle Sav. Bank v. Van Zee, 569 N.W.2d 386, 388 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The May 14, 2001, transcript of the parties' agreement refers to Lewis's interests under Audrey's will only twice. In both references, her interests are to be consolidated into the sixty-seven acres of Church Place. Because we find these terms to be unambiguous, we have no need to engage in further interpretation or construction of the parties' agreement. Therefore, we uphold the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Even assuming we were to find that summary judgment was not otherwise warranted, the question at issue in Lewis's petition was fully and fairly adjudicated in the Nelsons' counterclaim. The issue in Lewis's petition is her interests under Audrey's will with respect to the parties' settlement agreement. The district court decided that question not only in the summary judgment but also in the Nelsons' counterclaim.

AFFIRMED.

Miller, J., concurs; Sackett, C.J., specially concurs without opinion.


Summaries of

Nelson v. Nelson

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Oct 12, 2005
707 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Nelson v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS NELSON, Plaintiff, PATRICIA LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Oct 12, 2005

Citations

707 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Lewis v. Estate of Nelson (In re Estate of Nelson)

In 1998 Louie exercised a power of appointment under his late wife Audrey's will. See Nelson v. Nelson, No.…