Estate of Wayne Baker, by Its Lisa James 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, and Kathy Pope, Kristy Munden, and Dustin Pope, Intervenors-Appellants.
17-0011
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- Wayne Baker lived and farmed on acreage owned by his parents; in 1980 he built and later improved a large movable Morton-style machine shed on a concrete pad and claims he paid for it and owned it personally.
- Lula Baker died in 2014; her estate listed the acreage for public auction in August 2016; Baker agreed the auction include the shed and bought the property (including the shed) at auction for $240,000.
- Baker filed suit against the closing/escrow agent claiming entitlement to share proceeds under Lula’s will; three beneficiaries (Kathy Pope, Kristy Munden, Dustin Pope) intervened and contested ownership/value of the shed and possible unjust enrichment.
- Baker moved for summary judgment; he submitted affidavits asserting his ownership of the shed and valuing it at $133,000, plus a professional appraisal of the acreage; intervenors submitted an assessor printout and an affidavit disputing documentary proof and valuation.
- The district court granted Baker’s motion, finding (1) Lula’s estate owned the acreage, (2) Baker owned the shed based on uncontested affidavits, and (3) the only credible evidence supported the shed value Baker claimed; the court declined to address unjust-enrichment claims raised by intervenors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant/Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of the shed | Baker asserts he solely owns the shed, built and improved at his expense; affidavits say so | Intervenors argue lack of documentary proof; point to absence of accounting and alleged co-farming arrangement | Court: No genuine factual dispute; affidavits established Baker’s ownership; summary judgment for Baker affirmed |
| Value of the shed | Baker provides affidavits valuing shed at $133,000 and an appraisal for the acreage that accounts for comparable sales | Intervenors point to county assessor data suggesting much lower share for improvements (argue shed could be worth far less) and that Baker provided no independent shed appraisal or accounting | Court majority: Intervenors’ evidence insufficient; only credible evidence supports Baker’s valuation; summary judgment affirmed. Chief Judge Danilson dissent (in part): assessor data raised genuine fact question about value, so partial summary judgment improper |
| Unjust enrichment (estate keeping full proceeds) | Baker’s suit sought share under will; Baker did not litigate unjust enrichment in this action | Intervenors raised unjust-enrichment arguments in resistance | Court: Issue not properly before this action; cannot be raised by intervenors here; district court did not consider unjust enrichment |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Iowa Iron Works, Inc., 503 N.W.2d 596 (Iowa 1993) (summary judgment standard)
- Parish v. Jumpking, Inc., 719 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2006) (definition of genuine issue for trial)
- Minor v. State, 819 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 2012) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Hlubek v. Pelecky, 701 N.W.2d 93 (Iowa 2005) (nonmoving party must present specific facts; speculation insufficient)
- Briggs v. Bd. of Dirs. of Hinton Cmty. Sch. Dist., 282 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1979) (parties make the issues; strangers cannot expand issues)
- Walderbach v. Archdiocese of Dubuque, Inc., 730 N.W.2d 198 (Iowa 2007) (genuine issue of material fact when reasonable minds may differ)
- Frontier Leasing Corp. v. Links Eng’g, L.L.C., 781 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 2010) (reviewing record affords opposing party every legitimate inference)