Schmidts familietræ (www.sm1.dk)

Efterslægt fra Svend Aage Nielsen (2014) His wife predeceased him. Arnold left a will, dated October 10, 1990. It named his three adult children, Gary Randeris, Jane Patten, and Dennis Randeris, as equal beneficiaries and nominated Gary as executor. The will authorized the executor to se ll the residential property as well as the household goods and personal effects the children did not divide among themselves within one year after Arnold's death. The proceeds from the sale were to be divided equally among the three children. Th e residue of Arnold's estate was to be placed in trust, with Gary as trustee, until the tenth year of the anniversary of his death. Arnold left assets valued at nearly $700,000, including 347 acres of farmland worth approximately $500,000. The will was admitted to probate. Gary was appointed executor. He designated Lewis and Barron, attorneys at law, as counsel. Gary ultimately filed a final report and application for discharge. Jane filed objections to the report and petitione d to remove Gary as executor and trustee. Dennis joined in the objections. Jane and Dennis alleged Gary should have taken steps to consider whether Arnold possessed sufficient mental capacity to transfer three parcels of real estate of unequal value to each of the children nine days before his death. Gary received th e most valuable parcel. Arnold was suffering from cancer at the time and resided in a nursing home. In the weeks prior to his death, he was often confused and disoriented. Jane and Dennis also observed that the final report failed to mention a deb t Gary incurred to Arnold many years ago which Gary discharged in bankruptcy in 1986. They believe the debt should have been set off against Gary's distribution under the will. Jane and Dennis were also critical of the manner Gary distributed the household and personal items. They pointed out the distribution was unequal and Gary failed to sell the undistributed items. Jane also objected to the earlier award of fee s to the executor and the attorney of $13,865 for their ordinary services in the estate. The fee order was entered without prior notice to the beneficiaries and contained no itemization of services or other information. She also questioned the val ue placed by Gary on the farm property. The grounds for removal generally paralleled the objections to the final report. Following a hearing on the final report and petition for removal, the district court declined to approve the final report and ordered Gary removed as executor and trustee. The court also ordered the undistributed household goods and personal prop erty be sold at public auction with the proceeds distributed as provided in the will. The court found Gary was indebted to Arnold in the sum of $5700 and ordered the amount paid into the estate. The court also set aside the predeath conveyances ba sed on the lack of mental capacity by Arnold to make the transfers and directed the property be distributed through the estate. Finally, the court set aside the award of executor fees and approved the attorney fees subject to an independent apprai sal of the real estate. The court directed Gary be paid a reasonable fee for his services based on the submission of an itemization of services. The trial court summarily denied a motion under rule 179(b), Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, and Gar y appealed.