In the Matter of the Estate of Ralph Roethler, Kent Lewis and Becky Lewis v. Angela M. Kuehn, Cheryl L. Upton, Jacquelyn F. Betsworth, Daniel W. Roethler, Mary Anne James, James F. Roethler, Donald A. Roethler, Constance L. Duke, Gerald E. Roethler, Kathleen S. Good, John M. Roethler, Daniel Lee Homan, and Frank E. Homan, 801 N.W.2d 833

Lewises held a first-right-of-purchase on 80 acres under Ralph Roethler's 1994 will; executor failed to notify them during probate.
Estate probate opened in 1999; final report approved and distributed; Lewises were not informed despite paragraph V naming them.
Ralph’s death occurred July 1999; the 80-acre property remained with Marjorie as life tenant and beneficiaries as remaindermen.
In 2008, Kent Lewis petitioned to reopen the estate under Iowa Code §633.489 to exercise the option; Pearsons later contracted to buy the same land.
District court reopened the estate under §633.489 to determine the Lewises’ option; trial in 2009 construed the will and held the Lewises had an unqualified option to purchase the 80 acres at the appraised value as of Ralph’s death ($140,600).
The court of appeals vacated the decision as to the merits, but this court affirmed reopening and held against a §633.488 time-bar view and rejected a “right of first refusal” interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reopening was proper under §633.489 vs §633.488	Lewises prevail under §633.489 for proper cause.	Beneficiaries argue §633.488 time-bar should apply.	Yes; §633.489 proper to reopen.
Whether the will unambiguously grants an unqualified option	Language grants an unqualified first right to purchase.	Option is conditional on Marjorie choosing to sell within four months.	Unqualified option to purchase the 80 acres.
What price governs the purchase—the 1999 appraised value or later value	Price at the time of Ralph’s death should govern.	Later appraised value should apply to reflect changes.	Purchase price fixed at the 1999 appraised value ($140,600).
Is equity the proper basis to avoid the five-year §633.488 bar	Equity supports reopening and honoring the option.	Equity not to override statutory limits.	Equitable grounds support reopening under §633.489.

Ritz v. Selma United Methodist Church, 467 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 1991) (new property found justified reopening under §633.489)
Lynch, 491 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa 1992) (equitable correction of executor fees may warrant reopening)
Warrington, 686 N.W.2d 198 (Iowa 2004) (proper cause to reopen for estate administration reasons)
Witzke, 359 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 1984) (abuse-of-discretion review for reopening under §633.489; 'necessary act' concept)
Moser v. Brown, 249 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 1977) (notice theory and reopening nuances predate later §633.489 guidance)
Noel v. Uthe, 184 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1971) (conditioning language in purchase options discussed in construction)
Hansen, 264 N.W.2d 746 (Iowa 1978) (integration of multiple will provisions and avoid ambiguity)