In the Matter of the Estate of Glen A. Waterman, Jingles Ti-Okay Waterman
847 N.W.2d 560
Iowa2014Background
- Glen Waterman died intestate in 2008; his long-time cohabitant Jingles Waterman (common-law spouse) was later adjudicated his surviving spouse and entitled to intestate share and homestead protections.
- Administrators (Glen’s parents) evicted Jingles, listed the Mederville house for sale, and obtained court approval to sell it to Daniel and Chasity Bushaw for $20,000; the Bushaws received a court officer’s deed and took possession in May 2010.
- Jingles appealed the approval of the sale; while appeal was pending the Bushaws made >$65,000 in improvements, increasing appraised value to $41,000.
- The court of appeals reversed the sale and remanded for homestead consideration; on remand the district court gave Jingles two options: accept $20,000 (relinquish interest) or keep the property by paying the Bushaws $53,500 for improvements; the court denied Jingles rent for the period she was dispossessed.
- On further appeal the Iowa Supreme Court addressed the interaction between homestead protection (Iowa Code ch. 561) and occupying claimant relief for improvers (Iowa Code ch. 560), and the availability of rental damages for wrongful dispossession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jingles) | Defendant's Argument (Bushaws) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homestead rights under ch. 561 are automatically superior to occupying-claimant rights under ch. 560 | Homestead is exempt from judicial sale; prior reversal meant sale was void so she retains possessory and ownership rights and cannot be compelled to buy out improvements | Chapter 560 protects good-faith occupying claimants who improve after a court-authorized sale; their equitable restitution rights survive a subsequent setting-aside of the sale | Homestead protections do not automatically extinguish occupying-claimant rights; both statutes construed broadly to achieve equitable justice — occupying claimants may be protected when they purchased and improved in good faith |
| Whether the Bushaws acquired "color of title" and acted in good faith under ch. 560 | Bushaws had notice (Jingles objected in court) and appeal was pending; thus they lacked good faith and cannot claim occupying-claimant protections | They relied on court approval, a court officer’s deed, and title counsel; they reasonably believed sale was valid and thus acted in good faith | Bushaws were good-faith purchasers at a judicial sale for purposes of ch. 560; actual subjective good faith (honest belief) sufficed despite constructive or potential notice |
| Whether improvements made by Bushaws can be treated as a debt permitting judicial sale of a homestead under §561.21(3) | Improvements without owner’s consent cannot convert into a debt that authorizes judicial sale of the homestead | Their work/materials constituted value for which they should be compensated; ch. 561.21(3) could apply | Court rejected treating improvements made without owner consent as a §561.21(3) debt; homestead not exposed to judicial sale on that basis |
| Proper remedy: option to owner to retain property by paying improver or accept proceeds; whether rent is owed for wrongful dispossession and how to calculate values | Jingles argued she should not be forced to pay an excessive buyout amount and is entitled to fair rental value during dispossession | Bushaws sought compensation for improvements and argued no rent should offset their recovery | Court modified remedy: owner may retake by paying appraised value of improvements ($21,000 = $41,000 post - $20,000 pre) into clerk, offset by rental credit; or accept $20,000 from estate plus $250/month rent from conveyance to judgment. Court awarded $250/month rent to Jingles until payment/recovery occurs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Vonnahme, 343 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 1984) (purpose of homestead statutes to secure family and public welfare)
- Martin v. Martin, 720 N.W.2d 732 (Iowa 2006) (homestead statute construed broadly to protect spouse’s rights)
- In re Property Seized from Bly, 456 N.W.2d 195 (Iowa 1990) (framework for determining what constitutes a judicial sale for homestead protection)
- Moser v. Thorp Sales Corp., 312 N.W.2d 881 (Iowa 1981) (good-faith standard for occupying claimants is less technical than bona fide purchaser standard)
- Meyers v. Canutt, 46 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 1951) (good faith measured by actual subjective belief — occupier’s honest belief supports occupying-claimant relief)
- Resnick v. City of Fort Madison, 145 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 1966) (some reasonable basis required for occupier’s belief; reliance factors include taxes, counsel, improvements)