Gary L. Riedesel v. the Estate of Lloyd W. Furlong, II, Lloyd W. Furlong, II, Becky Furlong
16-2095
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- On October 30, 2013, Lloyd Furlong (an Ohio resident) rear-ended Gary Riedesel (an Iowa resident). Lloyd had died before settlement discussions concluded.
- In November 2014 Lloyd’s insurer sent a proposed release naming "Lloyd and Becky Furlong and the Estate of Lloyd Furlong," giving Riedesel reason to believe an estate existed.
- Riedesel filed suit on October 22, 2015 against Lloyd, Becky, and Lloyd’s estate; the Ohio probate estate had been closed in August 2014 and was not reopened before suit.
- The district court granted an extension to attempt service until February 28, 2016; Becky was personally served February 4, 2016 and answered in her individual capacity.
- Lloyd and the estate moved to dismiss because the estate itself was never served within the allotted time and Riedesel made no attempt to reopen the closed estate or serve its personal representative.
- The district court dismissed Lloyd and the estate without prejudice under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302(5) for failure to show good cause; the court found Riedesel’s failure to inquire and reopen the estate was inadvertence/neglect. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by dismissing Lloyd and Lloyd’s estate for failure to timely serve the estate under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302(5) | Riedesel argued he reasonably believed an estate was open (based on insurer’s release language), diligently attempted to serve Becky (named as executor), and thus should get further extension to reopen the estate and serve its representative | Defendants argued no estate existed to be served, service on Becky could not effectuate service on a nonexistent estate, and Riedesel made no effort to reopen the closed Ohio estate or otherwise serve an estate representative within the extended period | Affirmed: court found no good cause under rule 1.302(5); Riedesel’s failure to check the estate status and reopen it was neglect/inadvertence and did not justify more time |
Key Cases Cited
- Brubaker v. Estate of DeLong, 700 N.W.2d 323 (Iowa 2005) (failure to serve an estate’s representative within extended time, and serving before estate opened, can be inadvertence and insufficient to show good cause)
- Wilson v. Ribbens, 678 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2004) (rules are to be liberally construed but parties must still comply with service requirements)
- Brown v. Roberts, 205 N.W.2d 746 (Iowa 1973) (service on a former executor after discharge is ineffective to bind the estate)