In the Matter of the Estate of Vera E. Cawiezell, 958 N.W.2d 842

Decedent Vera Cawiezell’s will devised ~150 acres of Muscatine County farmland to Tom and Beth Coronelli, subject to a clause forbidding sale or transfer outside the Coronellis’ immediate family for 20 years after death and granting Terry Brooks a first option to purchase during that period.
Executors appointed were Phyllis Knoche and Terry and Jill Brooks; they prepared a deed with a reversionary restriction to Knoche if the Coronellis transferred outside the permitted class before April 17, 2038.
The Coronellis objected, arguing the 20-year transfer restriction was a prohibited restraint on alienation and should be disallowed.
The district court held the transfer restriction void as an impermissible restraint on alienation; the court of appeals affirmed on all issues; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review limited to the restraint-on-alienation question.
The Supreme Court rejected the executors’ arguments that the restriction was not a restraint, that Iowa Code §614.24 (SURA) or the charitable-use exception justified the restriction, and declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) reasonableness approach.
Holding: the testamentary 20-year transfer restriction is an unlawful restraint on alienation and is void; lower-court judgments affirmed.

Issue	Executors' Argument	Coronellis' Argument	Held
Whether the 20‑year prohibition on transferring the devised farmland is a restraint on alienation	Not a restraint because the devise did not include the excluded transfer right; the restriction simply defines the interest given	It is a direct restraint on alienation of a fee devised in the will	The restriction is a prohibited restraint on alienation and is void
Whether Iowa Code §614.24 (SURA) permits a 20‑year transfer restriction	SURA allows reasonable/time‑limited restraints (20 years) on land	SURA governs stale uses/reversions and title-search limitations, not direct transfer prohibitions	SURA is inapplicable; it does not validate a direct transfer restraint
Whether the charitable‑use exception (per In re Coe College) applies	Coe shows restraints may be upheld where property is dedicated to charitable use	The devise is to private individuals, not a charitable gift	Charitable‑use exception does not apply to this private devise
Whether Iowa should adopt the Restatement (Third) reasonableness test rather than a bright‑line rule	Courts should adopt a fact‑specific, reasonableness standard (Restatement §3.4–3.5)	Maintain long‑standing bright‑line rule for certainty of title; issue not preserved below	Issue not preserved; court declines to adopt Restatement and reaffirms bright‑line rule

McCleary v. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311, 6 N.W. 571 (Iowa 1880) (historic articulation that any restriction suspending alienation is void)
Sisters of Mercy of Cedar Rapids v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 274 N.W. 86 (Iowa 1937) (charitable‑use exception recognized but restraint rule reaffirmed)
Crecelius v. Smith, 255 Iowa 1249, 125 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 1964) (general restraint on alienation by will or deed is void)
Martin v. Peoples Mut. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 319 N.W.2d 220 (Iowa 1982) (rule against direct restraints on alienability of vested interests)
In re Coe College, 935 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 2019) (charitable gifts may impose binding conditions, an exception to the rule)
Fjords N., Inc. v. Hahn, 710 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2006) (explaining SURA’s purpose to shorten title‑search periods and its scope)
Kersten Co. v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 207 N.W.2d 117 (Iowa 1973) (discussion of stare decisis and maintaining established rules)