Opinion ID: 1657412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is the Application of Section 249A.5(2)(c) Unconstitutional Under the Circumstances of This Case?

Text: The administrator contends the district court improperly applied the estate recovery statute retroactively to Ruby's 1990 transfer of a remainder interest to her son. More specifically, he argues allowance of the department's claim impairs his vested remainder interest in the farm in violation of the state and federal constitutions. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....); Iowa Const. art. I, § 21 (No ... law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.). The impairment arises, he contends, from the fact that he will have to sell or mortgage the property in order to have sufficient funds to place the value of Ruby's life estate in the probate estate. See generally Adair Benevolent Soc'y v. State, 489 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1992) (stating person challenging statute under contract clause must show the state law substantially impairs a contractual relationship). The flaw in this argument is that the department did not seek to reach Charles' remainder interest, nor did the district court order that the value of the remainder interest be included in Ruby's estate. That Charles may receive less upon Ruby's death than he anticipated can be attributed to the value of Ruby's life estate, not to the court's inclusion of his remainder interest in the probate estate. We conclude, therefore, that Charles' remainder interest is not impaired by subjecting Ruby's life estate to the department's repayment claim. Consequently, section 249A.5(2)( c ) is not unconstitutional as applied in this case.