Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-741 / 08-1814 Filed December 30, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES V. GRANT, Deceased REBECCA A. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AISHA R. GRANT-DALEY, FLOR-MARIA GRANT, SUZETTE GRANT-MCTAGGERT, KAREEM SEGLER, JAMIE-LEE GRANT and GREGORY J. FENDER, Executor of the Estate of James V. Grant, Defendant-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kristin L. Hibbs, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a jury's determination that she had no authority to change the beneficiary of decedent's life insurance policy and that decedent was not unduly influenced in executing a will. AFFIRMED.

Peter C. Riley of Tom Riley Law Firm, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Dennis J. Mitchell of Meardon, Sueppel & Downer, P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellees Aisha R. Grant-Daley, Flor-Maria Grant, Suzette Grant-McTaggert, Jamie-Lee Grant, and Kareem Segler.

2

Steven E. Ballard of Leff Law Firm, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellee Gregory J. Fender. Joseph T. Moreland of Hayek, Brown, Moreland & Hayek, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellee Gregory J. Fender.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Danilson, JJ.

3

SACKETT, C.J. Rebecca A. Grant, the wife of decedent James V. Grant, appeals, challenging a jury verdict finding she was without authority to submit forms changing the recipient of James's life insurance policy and retirement accounts to herself and that James was competent and not unduly influenced when he executed a will prior to his death. The other parties to the action, the executor of James's estate and his five children, disagree. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS. James Grant died on July 23, 2007, leaving his surviving spouse, Rebecca, and five children, Aisha GrantDaley, Flor-Maria Grant, Suzette Grant-McTaggert, Kareem Segler, and JamieLee Grant. He had married Rebecca on January 1, 2006. The children were all the products of other relationships. James, a long-term employee of the

University of Iowa, was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, and in March of 2007, was advised that the cancer was terminal. On June 10, 2007, James allegedly signed a document that, while professing love for his five children, disinherited them and basically left everything to Rebecca. James was hospitalized on July 5, 2007. On July 11, 2007, James advised Rebecca in the presence of others from his hospital bed that he intended to divorce her.1 On July 12, 2007, Rebecca filed a petition contending she was abused by James2 and a no-contact order was issued

1 2

A dissolution petition was prepared by his attorney but never filed. She alleged that on July 5 he pushed her, threw water at her and her shoes, pulled her eight-year-old daughter, who was not James's biological child, outside and would not let her go until their pastor pulled up to the house. She also alleged he always threw water on her or pushed her.

4

prohibiting any communication or contact by James, who remained hospitalized. 3 On July 13, 2007, James executed a will leaving all his property to his five children. On July 18, 2007, he executed a General Power of Attorney directing that his former wife, Janet Richardson, be his attorney-in-fact. On July 19, 2007, Rebecca delivered change of beneficiary forms to the benefits office of the University of Iowa designating her as the sole beneficiary of James's life insurance and TIAA-CREF accounts. The forms purportedly were signed by James on or about May 1, 2007. James died on July 23, 2007. On August 1, 2007, Greg Fender, the

executor nominated in James's July 13, 2007 will, filed a petition for probate of that will and a request that he be appointed executor. An order admitting the will and appointing him executor was entered that day. Fender, as executor, on August 29, 2007, filed a petition for declaratory judgment4 asking that the court find that the change of beneficiary forms Rebecca delivered on July 19, 2007, did not manifest decedent's intention and were not authentic. Fender also asked for a temporary injunction enjoining

Rebecca from transferring or expending funds from the life insurance policies and retirement accounts. On September 12, 2007, Rebecca filed a petition seeking probate of the June 10, 2007 will. On September 13, 2007, she filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking that the court declare the June 10, 2007 will to be decedent's

3

On July 18, 2007, she asked that the order be cancelled, and the district court cancelled it. 4 James's five biological children subsequently joined in the action.

5

valid will and that the July 13, 2007 will was a nullity. She further asked that Fender be removed as executor and his attorney be removed. The declaratory judgment actions were joined and a jury trial was held in September of 2008. After hearing the evidence, the jury responded to a series of interrogatories.5 The district court then filed an order determining that the jury found James had the mental ability to make the July 13, 2007 will and it was not the result of undue influence. The court further granted the petition of the

executor and James's five children for declaratory judgment and declared that the change of beneficiary forms Rebecca delivered to the University of Iowa had no effect as the jury found they were delivered without authority. Rebecca filed a motion for new trial arguing, among other things, that the jury was improperly instructed and that she was prejudiced by the grant of a motion in limine limiting the admission of evidence about Jamie-Lee Grant, one of James's children and a party to this action. The motion was denied and this appeal follows. II. INSTRUCTIONS ON PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP. The

review of a challenge to jury instructions is for correction of errors at law. Anderson v. Webster City Cmty. Sch. Dist., 620 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 2000).

5

The jury was instructed to answer whether the beneficiary designation on the life insurance policy and on the TIAA-CREF accounts contained the authorized signatures of James Grant. The jury answered "yes" to this question. The jury was also asked to answer whether Rebecca had authority to file the change of beneficiary forms on July 19, 2007. To this question the jury answered "no." The jury was further instructed to answer whether James had the mental ability to make the July 13, 2007 will. To this question the jury answered "yes." The jury was also instructed to answer whether that will resulted from undue influence. To this question the jury answered "no."

6

Rebecca contends the district court erred in instructing the jury she must prove the requirements of a principal-agent relationship in connection with her delivery of beneficiary designations to the University. She argues the jury should not have been instructed that she had to prove she had authority as an agent for her husband as principal to file the change of beneficiary forms. The estate and James's children contend the instructions given are supported by law. They argue that the burden of proving an agency relationship is on the party asserting its existence, namely Rebecca. They assert she had the burden of proving she had the manifest consent of James, as principal, and she acted on his behalf and subject to his control and consent. In order to bind him, they contend, she must have had previous authorization from James with his express or implied knowledge that ratified the filing of the change of beneficiary. The estate contends that error on this issue was not preserved. Rebecca states she objected to the agency instructions. When asked to make a record her attorney stated: First of all, with respect to the general submissibility of the instruction on agency, the suggestions and comments made when we were discussing these informally, I would object because I do not believe that normal agents and principals ought to apply in the context of the delivery of beneficiary designations between husband and wife. One of the instructions that Rebecca appears to argue should not have been given is that instruction that was designated as Instruction 20 which provides in relevant part: Rebecca A. Grant has the burden of proving that she had been authorized and directed by Mr. Grant, as his agent, to file the change of beneficiary forms for the life insurance policies and the TIAA-CREF accounts by proving the following:

7

1. That James Grant had manifested his consent for Rebecca A. Grant to file each change of beneficiary form and that consent continued through July 19, 2007; and 2. That Rebecca A. Grant was acting subject to James Grant's consent and control when she filed each change of beneficiary form on July 19, 2007; and 3. That any authority for Rebecca Grant to act on behalf of James Grant on July 19, 2007, had not been revoked or terminated. After Rebecca's attorney had made the objection above when addressing what instructions should be given as to agency, Rebecca's attorney stated: With respect to the language of the instructions on agency, I will state that we had substantial discussion of those outside

Download IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES V. GRANT, Deceased REBECCA A. GRANT, Plaint

Iowa Law