Court Opinion

ID: 9698883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:02:50.167083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.287508
License: Public Domain

STUART, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the affirmance but would limit our holding to the proposition that the power to sell and convey real estate implies a right to mortgage for three reasons: (1) Attorney for defendant stated in oral argument they were not, on appeal, contending for a right to invade the corpus. (2) The trial court did not decide that the life tenant had the power to invade the corpus and such holding here gives her a more favorable result than she received below without appealing. (3) The will, while granting a full power to sell, does not give the life tenant the power to invade the corpus.
Defendant in her answer prayed for a determination that she had the right to invade the corpus as well as encumber the real estate. The trial court held the full power of “disposition” given in the will included the right to mortgage but did not specifically or impliedly decide the question of the right to invade the corpus. He avoided making such determination. He concluded: “What Agnes McCarthy has done is to change the form of her investment. She could have sold off a part of the acreage and built a new home with the proceeds. Rather than do that she mortgaged the entire acreage and built the new home. The remaindermen have no reason to complain because the home is there and will become theirs upon the death of Agnes McCarthy unless she disposes of it in the meantime.”
Defendant made no motion for enlargement of the findings and took no appeal from the trial court’s ruling. There is no proposition of law nor brief point urging the power to invade the corpus before us and as stated earlier defendant’s attorney, in reply to a direct question on oral argument, stated they were not, on this appeal, contending defendant had such right.
With the possible exception of matters of child custody and visitation, we have repeatedly refused to render an opinion granting an appellee more favorable relief than was received in the trial court.
In Bartels v. Hennessey Brothers, Inc. (Iowa 1969), 164 N.W.2d 87, 92, we said: “The answer filed by defendant-appellee alleges, inter alia, the deed to first grantee was not intended as a conveyance of title to any property, and asks first grantee be barred and estopped from ever having or claiming any right in [certain lots].
*313“But, trial court failed to expressly or impliedly determine the issue thus raised by common grantor’s answer, and no request was made for clarification, amplification, or correction of the court’s findings and conclusions. (Citations)
“The record also discloses defendant-ap-pellee neither appealed nor cross-appealed, and resultantly can have no greater relief or redress here than was accorded it by trial court.” See: Morris Plan Leasing Co. v. Bingham Feed & Grain Co. (1966), 259 Iowa 404, 424, 143 N.W.2d 404, 417; In re Clausen’s Estate (1965), 258 Iowa 324, 331-332, 139 N.W.2d 196, 200-201; Decker v. Juzwik (1963), 255 Iowa 358, 371, 121 N.W.2d 652, 659; Randolph Foods, Inc. v. McLaughlin (1962), 253 Iowa 1258, 1277, 115 N.W.2d 868, 879; S. Hanson Lumber Co. v. DeMoss (1961), 253 Iowa 204, 208-209, 111 N.W.2d 681, 685; Schlotfelt v. Vinton Farmers’ Supply Co. (1961), 252 Iowa 1102, 1115, 109 N.W.2d 695, 702.
The majority opinion holds defendant has “an implied power to in good faith encroach upon or invade the corpus of the estate during her life, subject to the condition she may neither waste nor dispose of it by gift or will”. I am not persuaded Mr. McCarthy’s will bears such construction.
The majority says: “In relevant part, testator’s will specifically gave to the life tenant, ‘power to sell and convey any and all of the real estate’ and on her death ‘whatever property remains, personal, real or mixed, of every kind and nature’, to vest in designated remaindermen.” If these were all the relevant provisions in the will, I would agree that the power to dispose of the proceeds of the sale might be implied from the last provision. However, there is nothing contained therein which would restrict the life tenant’s right to make gifts. This limitation is arbitrarily imposed by the majority opinion.
The majority ignores a clause of equal relevance. After giving his wife a life estate in his residual property, Mr. McCarthy gave her the “power to sell and convey any and all of the real estate that I may die seized of and my said wife is to have the use of and the income from all of my property” subject to the payment of debts and expenses.
It is important to note the limitation to the use of and the income from his property is included in the clause which gives her the power to sell and convey, not in the clause granting the life estate.
There is a great difference between the power to change the form of the decedent’s property by the power to sell real estate and the power to dispose of the proceeds of such sale. This distinction is noted in Tague v. Tague (1957), 248 Iowa 1258, 1266, 85 N.W.2d 22, 27, “Continuing the Cooksey case states: ‘The will does not limit her to a sale of the property, but gives her the broader power to “dispose” of it if she so elects. This would include a gift.’ The power granted by the Tague will is not to ‘dispose of’ but to ‘sell’. ‘To sell’ as thus used, means to transfer for a consideration.” It is not proper to read the power to invade the corpus after sale into the will in the face of a provision in the same sentence limiting the life tenant’s interest to the use of and the income from decedent’s property.
This provision, in my opinion, cast an entirely different light on the phrase “whatever property remains” and prevents us from construing the will as granting the power to dispose of the proceeds as well as change the form of the property. Only by construing the phrase “whatever property remains” to refer to the kind or nature of the property remaining, rather than the amount, can all provisions of the will be harmonized.