Opinion ID: 1598986
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Plaintiffs' Claims are Barred.

Text: The record indicates that Opal Nelson died testate and unmarried in May of 1981. Her will was admitted to probate. The distributable portion of her estate was bequeathed to specific legatees in stated percentages. The defendant Church was one of these legatees as were several of the plaintiffs. Although the district court found that Charles Nelson had been the owner of the found money and that his interest therein had passed to Opal, it concluded that plaintiffs were barred from claiming by, through, or under Opal. It based this conclusion on the five-year limitation which section 633.488 places on reopening a final settlement in an estate. Plaintiffs urge that the time limit fixed in section 633.488 does not preclude reopening Opal's estate to administer newly discovered property. We believe that both section 633.488 and section 633.489 are involved in resolving this issue. These statutes provide, in relevant part, as follows: 633.488 Reopening settlement. Whenever a final report has been approved and a final accounting has been settled in the absence of any person adversely affected and without notice to the person, the hearing on such report and accounting may be reopened at any time within five years from the entry of the order approving the same, upon the application of such person, and, upon a hearing, after such notice as the court may prescribe to be served upon the personal representative and the distributees, the court may require a new accounting, or a redistribution from the distributees.... 633.489 Reopening administration. Upon the petition of any interested person, the court may, with such notice as it may prescribe, order an estate reopened if other property be discovered, if any necessary act remains unperformed, or for any other proper cause appearing to the court. It may reappoint the personal representative, or appoint another personal representative, to administer any additional property or to perform other such acts as may be deemed necessary. As with any issue of statutory interpretation, we begin with the language of the act and go no further if its meaning is clear. In re Hoppe, 289 N.W.2d 613, 616 (Iowa 1980); City of Des Moines v. Elliott, 267 N.W.2d 44, 45 (Iowa 1978); Iowa Code § 4.1(2) (1989). The five-year limitation on reopening a final settlement contained in section 633.488 is, by its express terms, aimed at an attempt to reopen an estate by an adversely affected person who was not given notice and opportunity to be heard on the final report. [2] Section 633.488 contemplates a reopening of matters which have been previously considered in the final accounting, distribution, and settlement order. Section 633.489, on the other hand, is aimed at reopening a closed estate for the purpose of administering property omitted from the inventory or performing other necessary acts which were not performed during the original administration. Section 633.489 does not place any time limitation on reopening for such purposes. Based on the district court's finding as to Charles Nelson's ownership and Opal's succession thereto, the bills and coins were property of Opal which were not administered in her estate. This is a circumstance which allows reopening of that estate for purposes of administering these assets and making distribution to her legatees in their proportionate share. These legatees are the rightful owners of the money rather than the finder. [3] This is true even though Opal was not aware of the buried money at the time of her death. See In re Weber's Estate, 162 Neb. 636, 642, 77 N.W.2d 158, 162 (1956) (after acquired property passes under will purporting to dispose of all testator's property even though testator was unaware of same); 96 C.J.S. Wills § 756, at 155-56 (1957) (same). The district court erred in concluding otherwise.