Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Estate of Baker v. Nepper

Court of Appeals of Iowa

September 13, 2017

ESTATE OF WAYNE BAKER, by its Executor, LISA JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALLEN NEPPER, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CLOSING ATTORNEY AND ESCROW AGENT FOR THE SALE OF AN ACREAGE WITH SEPARATELY OWNED MACHINE SHED AND SHOP, Defendant-Appellee, and KATHY POPE, KRISTY MUNDEN, and DUSTIN POPE, Intervenors-Appellants.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Edward A. Jacobson, Judge.

         Kathy Pope, Kristy Munden, and Dustin Pope appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wayne Baker.

          Maura Sailer or Reimer, Lohman, Reitz, Sailer & Ullrich, Denison, for appellants.

          Lance D. Ehmcke, Jacob V. Kline, and Allyson C. Dirksen of Heidman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Sioux City, for appellees.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.

          BOWER, Judge.

         Kathy Pope, Kristy Munden, and Dustin Pope (the Intervenors) appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wayne Baker. We affirm.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         Baker moved to an acreage owned by his parents, Lula and Vernie Baker, in 1966 where he farmed with his father and operated a trucking business. In 1980 a large Morton-style machine shed was constructed on the property. The building was moveable except for a poured concrete pad. Further improvements and alterations were made to the building. Baker claims the construction and improvement of the shed were at his sole expense and his parents understood the building was solely his personal property.

         Lula Baker died on September 5, 2014, [1] and her estate was opened on September 18. The estate made no claim to the shed. The acreage was to be auctioned on August 20, 2016. Baker was contacted by the auctioneer and asked to sell the building along with the acreage, as it would likely increase interest and the sale price. Baker consented and stopped preparing to move the building to another site. Baker participated in the auction and purchased the property, including the shed, for $240, 000.

         On August 22, Baker filed an action naming Allen Nepper, the closing and escrow agent, as defendant and claiming Baker was entitled to share in the proceeds of the sale under the terms of Lula's will. Kathy and Dustin Pope, with Kristy Munden, also beneficiaries of Lula's will, intervened in the action. On November 1, Baker filed a motion for summary judgment, and on December 27, the motion was granted. The Intervenors now appeal.

         II. Standard of Review

         We review a district court's grant of summary judgement for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. Summary judgment is properly granted when the moving party demonstrates there is no genuine issue of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Iowa Iron Works, Inc., 503 N.W.2d 596, 598 (Iowa 1993). An issue is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable finder of fact could return a verdict or decision for the nonmoving party." Parish v. Jumpking, Inc., 719 N.W.2d 540, 543 (Iowa 2006). We also review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Minor v. State, 819 N.W.2d 383, 393 (Iowa 2012).

         While we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Intervenors "may not rest upon the mere allegations of [their] pleading but must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial." Hlubek v. Pelecky, 701 N.W.2d 93, 95 (Iowa 2005) (citing Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(5)). Mere ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.