Why do Wills End Up in Court?

Oct 19

A 2026 Iowa Appellate Court review of estate-centered opinions

Probate Law and Contesting a Will — Probate Law and the Laws governing Wills and Trusts are slow to change compared to other areas of law. Case law from the early 1900s is still cited as good law in modern court cases. Despite consistent court rulings, cases make their way before the court every year. The topics of this year's court opinions cover Will Challenges, Court Interpretation of Wills, and Beneficiary Objections to the Probate Administration.

Will Challenges

There are a few routes to contest the validity of a properly executed Last Will and Testament. The most common are claims of Undue Influence, Lack of Testamentary Capacity, and Tortious Interference with Inheritance.

Undue Influence

Undue Influence means “the will of the person exercising the influence for that of the testator, thereby making the writing express, not the purpose and intent of the testator, but that of the person exercising the influence. It must operate at the very time the Will is executed and must be the dominating factor.” In re Est. of Bayer, 574 N.W.2d 667, 671 (Iowa 1998).

To establish a case of Undue Influence before the court, the person challenging the Will must show:

The testator was susceptible to undue influence;
The alleged wrongdoer had the opportunity to exercise the influence;
The alleged wrongdoer had a disposition to unduly influence the testator to procure an improper favor; and
The result, reflected in the will, was clearly the effect of undue influence.

If there is a “confidential relationship” between the testator and the alleged wrongdoer, the court presumes that undue influence exists. Then the burden of proof shifts to the alleged wrongdoer to show the Will was created by the testator free from influence. A confidential relationship can come in many forms, but in essence, it is where “one comes to rely on and trust another in [their] important affairs. It arises whenever a continuous trust is reposed by one person in the skill and integrity of another.” Geerdes by Jenkins v. Cruz, 7 N.W.3d 22, 28 (Iowa 2024).

For the alleged wrongdoer to overcome the presumption, they must prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that they acted in good faith throughout the transaction and that the testator acted freely, intelligently, and voluntarily. Jackson v. Schrader, 676 N.W.2d 599, 605 (Iowa 2003).

In this year’s Iowa appellate court case, Aubin Reed, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Marietta Muchow, v. Lisa Muchow-King. The grantor, Marietta, gave her daughter, Lisa, a lake house while Marietta was still alive. The granddaughter of another child challenged this transfer, stating that Marietta was unduly influenced into giving Lisa the house. Lisa was Marietta’s primary caregiver, driving her to appointments, cooking her meals, and assisting with many aspects of daily life, and as such, a confidential relationship was established between Marietta and Lisa. Lisa was able to overcome the presumption by showing that Marietta did not suffer from diminished mental capacity; her attorney testified that Marietta understood what she was doing. The court also took into consideration that Marietta insisted on driving 8 hours to her attorney’s office, instead of using a local attorney. And she never told Lisa what she wanted the attorney to do.

Lack of Testamentary Capacity

One of the factors for a will to be a valid and enforceable document is that the testator must have testamentary capacity. Testamentary capacity means the testator, at the time of execution of the document, knows:

- The extent of their property

- The “natural objects of his bounty”

- What a Will is

- How their will is distributing property

To challenge a Will on these grounds, the petition must show that the testator did not have the capacity to understand the above. This potential challenge is why there are formalities to a will signing, in which the Testator declares that they are signing their will before their witnesses.

Intentional Interference with Inheritance

To establish a claim of Intentional Interference with Inheritance, the petitioner must prove:

- They had a reasonable expectation of receiving an inheritance

- The alleged wrongdoer committed an intentional and independent legal wrong

- The alleged wrongdoer’s purpose was to interfere with Buck’s expectancy

- The alleged wrongdoer’s action caused the expectancy to fail

- The Petitioner suffered an economic loss as a result.

The Case, In the Matter of the Estate of Bessie F. Langer, Deceased, a niece of the testator, challenged the will on grounds of undue influence and intentional interference with inheritance. In this matter, the court dismissed the case on summary judgment since the niece “failed to produce evidence generating a genuine issue of material fact”.

Interpretation of Wills

Sometimes the language of the Will document is not clear in expressing the testator’s desires; this can be due to poor drafting or to an unanticipated situation that makes the language of the Will impractical to implement as written.

When the court interprets a Will, the cardinal rule is “the intent of the testator is the polestar and must prevail,” Lawrence J. Rogers Tr. v. Rogers (In re Est. of Rogers), 473 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Iowa 1991). To determine the testators’ intent, the court stays “within the four corners of the document,” meaning that the intent is gleaned only from the document itself and not by using extrinsic evidence.

If the Testator’s intent “as expressed in the will is clear and unambiguous, then “there is no need for judicial construction, or extrinsic evidence and all other rules of testamentary interpretation are inapplicable and must yield”” Palmer v. Evans, 124 N.W.2d at 860 (quoting Est. of Artz, 120 N.W.2d at 422).

If the intent is ambiguous, then the court can consider evidence outside of the language of the Will to determine intent.

Conditions for a bequest

Sometimes, a Testator decides they want to give something to someone or a business only if specific conditions are met. We tend to call these Conditional Gifts. In the case In The Matter of The Estate of Herman Carl Stille, Deceased, Herman wanted to give $10 million dollars to his local hospital, Floyd County Memorial Hospital, for the purpose of establishing an oncology center. He gifted them the money on the condition that the funds be used to establish a cancer center and “must be adequate to include office space for oncologists, consultation rooms for patients, separate areas for administering radiation, chemotherapy, and other cancer treatments” id. pg. 3. Later in the same clause, Herman said that if the Hospital failed to maintain its independence, then the money would instead go to Mayo Foundation.

Because of the regulations surrounding a device called a linear accelerator, the Hospital could not provide radiation treatment. Mayo has brought this matter before the court to determine whether the Hospital's inability to provide radiation treatment meant it failed to meet the conditions and therefore did not receive the funds. Ultimately, the court concluded that the language of the Will was unambiguous and that it stated that Mayo only got the funds if the Local Hospital lost its independence. Because the Hospital was still independent, Mayo did not receive the funds.

(There’s also fun legal analysis on the issue of standing - who can challenge the Will, but that doesn’t directly relate to today’s topic.)

Cy Pres

Unlike the previous case, in the case of In Re Ezra L. Totton Scholarship, there is no dispute on the intent of the testator’s gift, but what to do when the terms of the gift become unlawful to abide by. Dr. Totton was a black man born in 1908. He sought an education at a time when states like Tennessee had laws that made it a misdemeanor to permit black and white students to attend the same school. After serving time in the army, Dr. Totton received his Master of Science Degree in Chemistry from the University of Iowa. When Dr. Totton died in 1996 his Will created a gift for the University of Iowa for “Black students majoring in the physical sciences, preferably chemistry” This scholarship ran without issue until 2023 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), 600 U.S.181, 230 (2023), held that universities could not use race-based preferences in admissions.

The president of the University of Iowa brought this action before the court, asking the court to modify the terms of the gift. In theory, this could be done under the legal doctrine of Cy Pres. This doctrine is codified in Iowa in Iowa Code Section 640A.106, “If a particular charitable purpose of a restriction contained in a gift instrument on the use of an institutional fund becomes unlawful, impracticable, or impossible to fulfill, the court, upon application of an institution, may modify the purpose of the fund or the restriction on the use of the fund in a manner consistent with the charitable purposes expressed in the gift instrument…”

In this case, the Iowa Supreme Court concluded that it was impracticable to distribute the scholarship funds under a race-based restriction, but did not agree with the University’s modification to apply the scholarship to first-generation students instead. The case is remanded to the district court to ensure that the proceedings protect the donor’s intent or to determine whether a modification can be made to align with the charitable trust's primary purpose.

Alleged Scrivener’s Error

Although attorneys exercise due diligence and endeavor to create error-free documents, we are still human, and errors do occur. If a person's name is misspelled, the reasonably identifiable standard keeps distributions going where they were intended. Sometimes the errors are too great to be overcome by that standard. In the Matter of the Estate of Arthur G. Kahler, there was an error in the legal description of 60 acres; it ultimately described land that did not exist. After the execution of the Will, the Testator bought land that was closer to the description of the land in the Will, but the Will was never updated, and so after the testator’s death, the estate asked the court to interpret the Will. The Child named to specifically get the non-existent plot was asking the court to give them the after-acquired plot.

Errors such as this are considered latent ambiguities. The court follows the same steps listed above to first determine the testator's intent from the Will itself. When the ambiguity cannot be cleared up by the document itself, then the court can look to extrinsic evidence to help clarify the testator’s intent.

In this instance the Court could not “correct” the will, the extrinsic evidence provided a potential equalizing solution, but “extrinsic evidence may not add or detract from the will” Whitehouse v. Whitehouse, 113 N.W.2d at 759, 760-761 (Iowa 1907). If there had been land that the testator had owned with a similar legal description, the court could have corrected the ambiguity created by the error. However, the testator owned no such property. The result being one child did not receive their own parcel and the after purchased parcel was instead given to various charities.

Objections to the Probate Administration

When a Will and Trust are being probated, beneficiaries, heirs at law, or other interested parties may object to the decisions or actions of the executors or the attorney involved. The most common objections are related to Fees awarded to the executor or attorneys, the distribution or sale price of the estate's property, or, sometimes, a baseless objection because they are not happy with the situation.

Fees

The fees paid by an estate to an executor or an attorney for the estate are regulated by Iowa Code Sections 633.197 and 633.198, or 635.8 if it is a small estate. In addition to those fees, an attorney or executor may apply to the court for extraordinary fees in excess of what the statutes allow. There were two cases regarding fee applications this year in the Iowa Court of Appeals. In one instance, they were approved, and in the other, they were reduced. If there is one takeaway from comparing the cases, when applying for fees, be able to prove the time spent and services done for the estate.

In the Matter of the Estate of Vera J. Krull, in this case, both the executors’ fees and the attorneys' fees were reduced by the district court to an amount lower than what is allowed by statute for ordinary services. The primary asset of the estate was farmland that had grown in value in the three years since the beginning of the administration to $1,278,800. The Executors applied for a shared fee totaling $27,525.90, and the attorney also applied for $27,525.90. Several beneficiaries objected, arguing that it was not a complex estate. In the District court hearing, the Executors provided partial itemizations of their work for the estate. The Court denied the request for the maximum fee and instead set the fee for the executors at $7,500 and the attorney's fee at $ 12,000. The Iowa Court of Appeals did not find any abuse of discretion by the District Court: “There is no requirement that the court allow the statutory percentage in any case.” In re Est. of Engelkes, 127 N.W.2d 111, 114 (Iowa 1964).

In the Matter of the Estate of Hugh C. Richardson, the administration of this estate was more complex than the above case. The surviving spouse applied for spousal support to be paid by the estate during the administration. Additionally, the surviving spouse was challenging an option agreement for one of the testator’s sons to purchase shares of an investment agreement. The firm initially hired to represent the estate had a conflict of interest arise partway through the administration and had to remove itself from the case. This firm applied for a fee for the work it had performed for the estate: $11,866.50 in ordinary fees and $21,473.00 in extraordinary fees. The surviving spouse objected to the fee. The district court reduced the fee to $7,461.00 after a hearing at which the Firm provided a detailed itemization of services rendered. The Firm appealed the fee determination, and the Iowa Court of Appeals reviewed the matter. In this instance, the Court found the District Court had abused its discretion, “In reducing the amount of attorney fees requested by the Firm, the court did not cite which entries it found duplicated or explain how they were duplicated…Nor did the court say how many hours it found the Firm overbilled for each category cited in its ruling… The ruling focuses on services the Firm did not perform instead of deciding the value of the services it did perform.” page 7 of the decision. The Appeals court remanded the case to the District Court with directions to grant the fee application in its entirety.

Distribution of Property

Personal property, people’s things and items, can be the spark that starts conflict between beneficiaries. They are often the assets with the least direction from the deceased person of who gets what, and there can be a lot of sentimentality attached to objects. With Bank accounts and other monetary assets, there are many mechanisms to direct their distribution. Iowa law provides an option for a testator to make a list or letter of property distributions under Iowa Code Section 633.276, so the testator can specify who gets what of personal property. The Testator in In the Matter of the Estate of Dorothy L. Bastian, completed one such memorandum. In it, the Testator said all of her jewelry should go to one daughter, the Testator’s son brought an action asserting that since the memorandum was never filed with the court, it was not an effective devise of the property. The Courts disagreed with the assertion. They interpreted the statute as unambiguous. There is no filing requirement in the statute, and the Court will not read one into the statute.

Sanctions

It is not uncommon for beneficiaries to become upset at some point in the probate process for various reasons, but not all of those reasons are actionable in the courts. When filings are made in matters for “any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation,” Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413(1) permits the court to award attorney’s fees as a sanction for such filings in order to deter frivolous filings. In the case of In the Matter of the Estate of Alice K. Laaker, Deceased. The Court sanctioned a beneficiary $21,804.90 in attorneys’ fees because he filed multiple petitions attempting to remove the executor. The Beneficiary in this case appealed the sanction award. The sanction was ultimately reversed because the district court did not make specific findings on the “(1) the reasonableness of the opposing party’s attorney’s fees; (2) the minimum to deter (3) the ability to pay; and (4) factors related to the severity of the violation.” Barnhill v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 765 N.W.2d 267, 277 (Iowa 2009).

An interesting development related to the sanction in this case is the newly effective legislation passed in HF2532, which took effect on July 1, 2026, and created Iowa Code Section 633.163. “In a disputed judicial proceeding involving the administration of a decedent’s estate, the court, as equity and justice may require, may award costs, attorney fees, and other expenses to any party to be paid by another or from the estate that is the subject of the controversy. For the purposes of this section, attorney fees do not include an attorney fee as described in section 633. 198”

While sanctions remain an option for the court, the new code section opens an avenue for attorneys’ fees to be awarded in disputed cases, whether or not the case filings were frivolous.

How to keep your estate out of court

As interesting as it is to read about estate disputes before the court is, they involve real people working through real conflicts, and no one wants their family to be the ones in court. Many conflicts can be avoided with appropriate planning before death or with clear communication throughout the probate process. Experience with Estate Planning AND Probate matters when selecting an attorney to represent you for either. Estate planning documents are planned with the Probate process and potential conflicts in mind. Experienced attorneys in Probate and Trust administration can make the process smoother and help find solutions to problems before they go to court. At Hope Wood JD, Estate Planning and Probate are the only areas we practice in.

Looking to do your Estate Planning with experienced estate planning attorneys? Schedule a Revocable Trust or Estate Planning Consultation to discuss which estate planning options are appropriate.

Are you the named executor of an Estate and you're already overwhelmed? Schedule a Probate consultation with us to learn more about the process and see if we are the right fit to help you through the probate process.