Estate of Bisignano, 991 N.W.2d 135

Ruth "Ruthie" Bisignano was a well-known Des Moines bar owner; Exile Brewing later used her name and image for a best-selling beer called "Ruthie."
Ruth died intestate in 1993 and her estate closed; her husband Frank died in 1996 and his estate closed in 1999; neither inventory listed any intellectual property rights.
In 2020 Frank’s nephew, Fred Huntsman, petitioned the Polk County probate court to reopen Frank’s estate and later Ruth’s estate, asserting potential claims (new property) against Exile based on Exile’s use of Ruth’s name/likeness.
Huntsman (as administrator) and the reopened estates sued Exile in district court for appropriation/right of publicity, deceptive advertising, and related claims; Exile defended and removed the case to federal court later.
Exile moved in probate to intervene and to vacate/dismiss/close the reopened estates; the probate court struck Exile’s motion, finding Exile an interloper and denying intervention; the court also denied the estates’ fee request.
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Exile’s intervention and the denial of attorney’s fees, leaving merits of intellectual-property and inheritance questions for the civil litigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Exile could intervene as of right in probate	Reopenings create estate property rights; Exile’s trademark/use interest will be impaired by reopening	Exile is not an "interested person" in probate and has only a contingent potential liability/interest	Denied — Exile’s interest is contingent and not the type of direct estate interest required for intervention as of right
Whether Exile could permissively intervene	Exile’s defenses overlap factual/legal issues with the reopening	Reopening is an equitable estate-administration matter distinct from civil IP claims; intervention would be interloping and delay proceedings	Denied — court acted within discretion; probate reopening and civil IP litigation involve different scopes
Whether the estates should recover attorney’s fees under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.413	Exile’s probate motion was an improper, tactical repackaging of previously rejected arguments and warranted sanctions	Exile’s filings were supported by statutes, caselaw, and reasonable inquiry; not frivolous	Denied — imposing sanctions was unwarranted; Exile’s positions were objectively reasonable

In re Estate of DeVoss, 474 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 1991) (intervention appeals focus on claimed interest; review with deference)
In re Est. of Boyd, 634 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 2001) (definition of "interested person" tied to diminution of estate assets)
In re Est. of Plumb, 129 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1964) (construction of "interested person" concept)
In re Troester's Est., 331 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1983) (possible debtors to an estate are not interested parties for intervention)
Barnhill v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 765 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 2009) (objective standard for sanctions under rule 1.413)
Homeland Energy Sols., LLC v. Retterath, 938 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 2020) (factors for evaluating frivolous litigation and appellate standard for sanctions)
In re Guardianship of Radda, 955 N.W.2d 203 (Iowa 2021) (losing but nonfrivolous arguments and sanctions analysis)
United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1984) (denial of permissive intervention rarely reversed)
Cooper v. Erickson, 239 N.W. 87 (Iowa 1931) (unauthorized interveners are interlopers)
Mass. Bonding & Ins. v. Novotny, 202 N.W. 588 (Iowa 1925) (interloper doctrine and lack of rights from unauthorized interference)