No. 4-518 / 03-1934.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
September 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, William J. Pattinson Judge.
Beneficiaries appeal the district court’s decision to approve the executors’ final report in this probate estate. AFFIRMED.
Clarke Pasley, Ames, for appellants.
James Brewer and Donald Newbrough of Newbrough, Johnston, Brewer, Maddux Howell, L.L.P., Ames, for appellees.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
MAHAN, P.J.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
This case involves the estate of Annie Fung, who died on February 11, 2000. Annie’s will devised her estate to her four step-children: David Fung, Peter Fung, Lisa Fung, and Margaret Fung, share and share alike. David and Peter were named as co-executors. The will was admitted to probate. The executors filed a report in October 2000 which listed the total amount of Annie’s assets as $3,840,859.32. Of this amount, $3000 was listed as personal property, with most of the remainder being held in real estate, stocks and bonds. The estate included about 1600 items of personal property.
In June 2003 the district court directed the attorney for the estate to file a final report within sixty days. The court provided:
In the interim, all interested parties should enter into a plan or agreement for the disposition of the personal property with the expectation that their failure to do so shall result in it being sold and the proceeds included for distribution in the final report.
In August 2003 the parties agreed to a distribution plan for the personal property held in the estate. The parties informally agreed to a distribution of most of the items, but there were conflicts on some items which more than one beneficiary requested. The executors held a meeting on October 9-10, 2003, in Santa Clara, California, with the intention that these conflicts would be resolved. David and Peter lived near Santa Clara, and that is where they stored the items of personal property. Lisa, who lives near Los Angeles, and Margaret, who lives in New York, decided not to attend the meeting in person, but they were able to communicate their requests by telephone or e-mail.
The executors filed a final report, including a proposed distribution of personal property. Lisa and Margaret objected to the final report, claiming they were not given a fair opportunity to appear at the October 2003 meeting and select the property they wanted. After a hearing, the district court approved the final report. Lisa and Margaret appeal.
II. Standard of Review
This action involving objections to the executors’ final report is a proceeding in equity. Iowa Code § 633.33 (2003). Our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, we give weight to the fact findings of the district court, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
III. Merits
On appeal, Lisa and Margaret contend the final report should not have been approved because the inventory did not contain estimated values for all items of personal property, as required by section 633.361(10), and the report did not contain an adequate accounting, as required by section 633.477(9). These issues were not raised before the district court. Our review is limited to those issues raised before the district court. See In re Estate of Randeris, 523 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994).
Lisa and Margaret also claim the distribution of the estate has not actually been finalized because there has not yet been a face-to-face meeting to resolve conflicts regarding distribution of the items of personal property. They assert the meeting dates of October 9-10, 2003, were not acceptable because they were on a Thursday and Friday, and claim the executors should have arranged a meeting on a weekend. They ask to have the matter remanded so that a further meeting could be held.
In addressing this issue, the district court stated:
This Court is satisfied that all beneficiaries had notice of the meeting called by the Co-Executors, the opportunity to attend, and that Margaret and Lisa chose to not attend for their own reasons. Given the history of this estate, this Court is unconvinced that one additional meeting of these beneficiaries would result in any better, more balanced division of the personalty than presently exists in the Co-Executors’ proposal (found in the Interlocutory Report filed October 27, 2003). To the contrary, the Court believes it would be called upon to referee property-share disputes despite the convening of another informal beneficiary meeting.
We agree with the district court’s conclusions. The executors attempted to schedule the meeting on a weekend, but the parties could not agree on a weekend when they could all be present prior to the sixty-day deadline imposed by the court for filing the final report. Lisa and Margaret were able to participate in the meeting even though they were not physically present. We determine the district court properly approved the final report.
AFFIRMED.