Estate of Dorothy Harris v. Randall Everett Harris, His Unknown Spouses, Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Successors in Interest and Their Unknown Spouses and the Parties in Possession and Unknown of the Following Described Real Estate Situated in Floyd County, Iowa ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0408
Filed March 8, 2017
ESTATE OF DOROTHY HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RANDALL EVERETT HARRIS, HIS UNKNOWN SPOUSES, HEIRS,
DEVISEES, GRANTEES, ASSIGNEES, SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST AND
THEIR UNKNOWN SPOUSES AND THE PARTIES IN POSSESSION AND
UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE
SITUATED IN FLOYD COUNTY, IOWA,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Christopher C. Foy,
Judge.
Randall Harris appeals from the district court’s order setting aside a quit
claim deed. AFFIRMED.
Roger L. Sutton of Sutton Law Office, Charles City, for appellants.
Rodney E. Mulcahy of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles
City, for appellee.
Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
Randall Harris appeals from the district court’s order setting aside a quit
claim deed executed by his mother, Dorothy Harris, which conveyed real estate
to him. He asserts the district court erred in finding the Estate proved Dorothy
lacked sufficient mental capacity to execute the quit claim deed by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Upon our de novo review, we affirm the
district court’s order setting aside the quit claim deed and declaring it void.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On March 31, 2011, Dorothy signed a quit claim deed conveying her home
and surrounding acreage (totaling thirteen acres) to her youngest son, Randall.
The deed was recorded on April 8, 2011. Dorothy was divorced and never
remarried. Dorothy had three sons: Richard, Robert, and Randall. She raised
her children in Texas and worked as a machinist prior to moving to Iowa to care
for her aging parents and continue working as a machinist here.
For several years, Randall and his daughter lived with Dorothy on her
acreage near Floyd, Iowa. In 2008, Dorothy signed paperwork appointing
Randall as her durable power of attorney for medical care and general matters.
Dorothy’s son, Robert, resided in Texas with his wife and youngest child. Robert
and his wife visited Dorothy several times a year and stayed at her home during
their visits. Robert also spoke on the phone with his mother frequently. Robert’s
son, Eric, had lived with Dorothy in Iowa during his high school years. At all
times relevant to this appeal, Eric lived in Jewell, Iowa, with his family but owned
real estate near Dorothy’s home and visited her often. Dorothy lived at home
until January 2012 when she was moved to a long-term care facility. Randall
3
continued to reside at Dorothy’s home after Dorothy left and was still living there
at the time of trial.
Following Dorothy’s death in August 2012 at the age of eighty-two, her
grandson, Eric, was appointed administrator of her estate. On July 15, 2013, the
Estate of Dorothy Harris filed a petition for quiet title, alleging Dorothy was not
mentally competent to sign the March 2011 quit claim deed. Subsequently,
Dorothy’s last will and testament was found. Her will nominated and appointed
Randall to serve as executor. Randall filed an application to remove Eric as the
administrator in this matter. Ultimately, the court appointed a corporate
administrator of the Estate. Thereafter, the corporate administrator proceeded
with the petition for quiet title. On January 6, 2015, the court dismissed the
Estate’s case pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.944 for failure to
prosecute. The Estate filed an application to reinstate, which the court granted.
The matter came on for trial on March 18, 2015. At trial, the Estate
presented evidence of Dorothy’s declining mental functioning over the last three
to four years of her life. In November 2008, Randall took Dorothy to see a
physician, Dr. Mark Haganman, due to concerns about memory loss.
Dr. Haganman diagnosed Dorothy with dementia, describing it as a “[c]ognitive
impairment moderately severe likely Alzheimer’s type,” and prescribed Dorothy
medication to prevent further memory loss. Dorothy never took the medication.
Dorothy saw Dr. Haganman again in July and November 2010. In November,
Dr. Haganman observed a “significant, profound decline” in Dorothy’s mental
functioning. The record noted Randall was “alarmed about her progression”
regarding her memory impairment. The record further noted Dorothy “is very
4
poorly kept, filthy clothes, her hands and feet and chest and face are filthy, and
her hair is poorly kept as well. She is oriented to person and confused to place
and time.”
In February 2011, Dorothy received treatment from Dr. Haganman for an
open, nonhealing wound on her leg. Because Dorothy was unable to care for the
wound on her leg properly at home, Dr. Haganman admitted Dorothy to the
hospital for a period of one week. Dr. Haganman opined Dorothy suffered from
Alzheimer’s disease and lacked the mental capacity to care for herself or
manage her financial affairs. Upon discharge, Dr. Haganman recommended
Dorothy enter skilled nursing for changing the bandages on her leg wound, but
Randall objected and insisted upon taking her home. Randall returned with
Dorothy the following day and stated he could not take care of her. The next
day, a home health nursing agency faxed a letter to Dr. Haganman stating its
refusal to care for Dorothy at her home due to its unsafe and unsanitary
conditions. Subsequently, Dorothy was placed in a nursing home for
rehabilitation.
Mary Lovik, a physical therapy assistant who worked with Dorothy three
times a week for wound care while she was in rehabilitation in February and
March 2011, observed Dorothy to have poor short-term memory and require help
with personal care. Lovik testified her conversations with Dorothy “dealt with . . .
repeated topics. I had to reintroduce myself constantly to her during this time I
had her for that one hour.” Lovik testified it was obvious Dorothy “had some
dementia” and needed help dressing herself and taking care of her wound. She
also stated Dorothy was unable to maintain her own activities of daily living.
5
Dorothy stayed in the nursing home for twenty days, after which Medicare no
longer fully covered her stay and she returned home.
Dorothy saw Joanne Robinson, a nurse practitioner, three times from mid-
to late-March 2011 for wound care for her leg. Robinson noted Dorothy had
dementia of the Alzheimer’s type and was confused, fidgety, and unfocused.
She also noted Dorothy had poor hygiene and appeared unkempt. In her notes,
Robinson wrote, “[Dorothy] is quiet. She seems to be a little out of touch with
reality. Most of her answers are appropriate, but her judgment seems to be
impaired.” Robinson recommended Dorothy start medication that would not
reverse Alzheimer’s but may preserve some of the intellect she had left. At the
end of March, Robinson referred Dorothy to another home care nursing agency.
Again, the nursing agency refused to see Dorothy at her home because it was
dirty and unsafe. On March 29, Robinson noted Dorothy was “confused and
forgetful,” “partially oriented,” and still unable to care for her leg wound.
Robinson attempted to administer a mini mental status examination, but Dorothy
refused to participate. Robinson diagnosed Dorothy with Type 2 diabetes.
Robinson recommended to Randall that Dorothy go to a nursing home, but
Randall did not want Dorothy to go to a nursing home and insisted he would take
care of her.
Robert testified he began to notice a substantial decline in his mother’s
mental functioning in 2008. He testified Dorothy started calling him by the wrong
name and repeating things she said when they talked on the phone or when he
visited. She once got lost, and someone had to locate her and help her get
home. She also started doing “compulsive things,” such as peeling walnuts.
6
Robert also testified the condition of his mother’s home started steadily declining
around the same time. Dorothy took on numerous cats that urinated and
defecated inside her home. Her own hygiene and personal care began to
decline as well: her clothes were dirty, her hair was not maintained, her shoes
were worn and tattered, she ate meals sporadically, and she stopped properly
taking care of her medical needs.
Robert also testified that when he visited his mother in August 2011, he
noticed the condition of the home to be “in serious decline”—there were still cats
in the home and there was a refrigerator that was not working because the cord
had been cut. Robert stated he offered to replace the refrigerator, which led to a
disagreement between himself and Randall, and Randall asked Robert to leave
the home. Robert testified it was at that point he learned the property had been
transferred to Randall and Dorothy “was not aware of it at the time.” Robert
testified he asked Randall to transfer the deed back to Dorothy but Randall
refused. Robert testified he then took Dorothy to see an attorney to have
documents prepared to put the property back into Dorothy’s name but the
attorney believed Dorothy to be mentally incompetent and refused to prepare the
paperwork. After that, Robert filed a petition for guardianship for his mother due
to her incompetency. Robert and Eric were eventually appointed temporary co-
conservatives for Dorothy. Shortly thereafter, Dorothy was moved to a long-term
care facility, and Randall refused to allow Robert or Eric onto the property.
Eric testified he started noticing a decline in his grandmother’s mental
abilities in 2008. He testified Dorothy did not remember asking questions and
repeated them and also started checking the mailbox several times a day. He
7
stated she stopped showering, was not wearing clean clothes, and was not
standing straight. He also started to notice a decline in her housekeeping when
her home had previously been well-maintained. Eric stated Dorothy was
confused about where he lived. Her recognition of his wife and children
diminished over the years, and she did not remember her neighbors when they
visited.
Nathaniel Schwickerath, the attorney who prepared the quit claim deed on
March 31, 2011, also testified at trial. Schwickerath testified that, when Dorothy
and Randall came into his office that day, he knew Dorothy was ill and wanted to
do some Title 19 planning and her only asset was the real estate. He met with
Randall and Dorothy together for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes and
then met individually with Dorothy for about the same time because she seemed
“frail” and he wanted to “make sure that this was what she wanted and not what
someone was forcing on her.” Schwickerath testified Dorothy expressed concern
over keeping the real estate within the family and she was worried Randall and
his daughter would be put out on the street if something were to happen to her or
she were required to sell the real estate. He testified Dorothy appeared to have
some physical difficulties, “[b]ut she was sharp as far as she—her understanding.
She was able to pay attention and could—could understand what I was
explaining to her.” He testified he “felt comfortable that she was smart enough to
know what she was doing on a business basis” and “to make her choices as to
what she wanted to do,” or he would not have completed the transaction. He
further testified Dorothy was “a little quiet and reserved initially” but was dressed
appropriately and was clean. Schwickerath also stated it was clear Dorothy
8
understood the effect of the deed she was signing and that it was irrevocable.
He testified that, when he met with Dorothy on March 31, he was unaware of her
diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease or her will, which provided all of
her assets be split equally among her living children. Finally, Schwickerath
testified he only saw Dorothy on that one occasion.
Randall’s daughter testified she moved out of her grandmother’s home in
2011. She acknowledged Dorothy displayed behaviors consistent with dementia
and Alzheimer’s disease but was meticulous in ensuring she understood what
she was signing when her granddaughter asked her to sign paperwork for
school.
Randall testified his mother was of sound mind when she signed the deed
on March 31, 2011, and did so of her own free will. He testified Dorothy’s mind
was sharp, she was still able to manage her daily affairs for the most part, but her
short-term memory “was an issue.” He testified Dorothy bathed and dressed
herself but repeated things she said, she called him and Robert the wrong
names, checked the mail repeatedly, and was “real fidgety and just moving all
the time and real just unrelaxed.” He also testified she consumed alcohol and
caffeine heavily and functioned better when she was off them. Randall did not
help Dorothy much with housekeeping or cooking and testified they ate out often
when Dorothy stopped cooking regularly.
Randall testified that, prior to preparing the deed on March 31, “the
original intent was to split the property up three ways,” but that proved “to be
pretty difficult to do,” so “we thought it would be best to just get it put into my
name. And then I could—If there was going to be any divisions, I could do that at
9
a later time.” He testified it was left to him to make the decision of whether the
property would be divided among the brothers based “on how much money and
burden [he] put into the place against the burden [his brothers] put into the
place.” Randall estimated he put approximately $41,000 worth of repairs into
Dorothy’s home over time and had attempted to file a mechanic’s lien on the
house. He testified he had put more into the house than it was worth and there
was a medical assistance debt on the property for Dorothy with a judgment of
$21,116 that he had assumed. He also stated, “I offered to give them guys
that—the place if they would bring my mother back there to that house where she
wanted to stay and take care of her. I—I told them I would leave and they could
have the whole thing.” Randall believed Robert and Eric had forced Dorothy out
of her home. Randall did not see his mother again after she left the home in
January 2012.
On February 2, 2016, the district court entered an order setting aside and
declaring void the quit claim deed, finding the Estate had proved by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence that Dorothy lacked sufficient mental
capacity to execute a quit claim deed conveying real estate to Randall. The court
noted, “When faced with conflicting evidence, the Court generally found the
testimony of the witnesses for the Estate more credible than the testimony of
Randall and his witnesses.” Specifically, the court noted “the demeanor and
attitude of Randall on the witness stand caused the Court to view his testimony
very skeptically. The Court also notes that Randall and his witnesses gave
inconsistent testimony regarding various matters.” The court relied on the sworn
testimony of Dr. Haganman and Nurse Practitioner Robinson that “Dorothy was
10
suffering from a debilitating form of dementia in the early months of 2011 and . . .
lacked the mental capacity to care for herself or to understand or handle her own
financial affairs.” The court further relied on Dorothy’s inability “to maintain her
personal hygiene, keep her home clean, and limit the number of cats living in her
home in late 2010 and early 2011” as “additional proof that her mental capacity
was significantly impaired.” Randall appeals.
II. Standard of Review
This matter was tried in equity; thus, our review is de novo. See Iowa R.
App. P. 6.097. We give weight to the factual findings of the district court,
especially regarding witness credibility, but we are not bound by them. See Iowa
R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g).
III. Analysis
A. Mental Capacity
Randall claims the district court incorrectly determined Dorothy lacked
sufficient mental capacity to execute the deed transferring the property to him.
“The party alleging lack of mental capacity sufficient to execute a deed has the
burden of proving by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that the grantor
did not possess ‘sufficient consciousness or mentality . . . to understand the
import of her acts’ when the deed was executed.” Daughton v. Parson, 423
N.W.2d 894, 896 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (quoting Costello v. Costello, 186 N.W.2d
651, 654 (Iowa 1971)); see also In re Estate of Baessler, 561 N.W.2d 88, 92
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Jackson v. Schrader, 676
N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 2003). “A higher degree of mental competence is required for
the transaction of ordinary business and the making of contracts than is
11
necessary for testamentary disposition of property.” Daughton, 423 N.W.2d at
896.
It has long been established that, when examining the issue of mental
capacity, a court may consider
[the grantor’s] physical condition; the adequacy of consideration;
whether or not the conveyance was improvident; the relation of
trust and confidence between the parties to the conveyance, and
the weakness of mind of the grantor as judged by h[er] other acts
within a reasonable time prior and subsequent to the act sought to
be impeached.
Id. (quoting Brewster v. Brewster, 188 N.W. 672, 674 (Iowa 1922)). We also
consider “the lack of independent advice as another relevant factor in
determining mental capacity.” Id. (citing In re Estate of Herm, 284 N.W.2d 191,
200 (Iowa 1979)).
At the time of the transfer, Dorothy had a nonhealing wound on her leg
that she was unable to care for, and she often appeared dirty and unkempt with
poor hygiene. Dorothy was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes a mere two days
before the transfer of real estate occurred. Attorney Schwickerath testified
Dorothy appeared “frail” when he met with her and he made sure he met with her
individually because he was concerned someone might be forcing her to transfer
her property when she did not want to. Based on these facts, it is obvious
Dorothy was in poor physical condition when she executed the deed.
Next, we note consideration for the transfer was for the nominal amount of
one dollar. After the transfer of the property was complete, Dorothy essentially
had no assets other than her personal property; thus, the conveyance may have
been improvident. Further, Randall and his daughter lived with Dorothy. Dorothy
12
relied on Randall to purchase groceries, to drive her to and from medical and
appointments, to care for her leg wound, and to make improvements to her
property that she had previously made herself.
Additionally, we give deference to the district court’s finding that the
Estate’s witnesses were more credible on the issue of Dorothy’s mental capacity
than Randall and his witnesses. The court relied heavily on the testimony of
Dr. Haganman and Nurse Practitioner Robinson. In February 2011,
Dr. Haganman opined Dorothy suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and lacked the
mental capacity to care for herself or manage her financial affairs. Physical
Therapist Assistant Lovik stated Dorothy was unable to maintain her own
activities of daily living. On March 29—two days before Dorothy met with
Schwickerath—Robinson noted Dorothy’s diagnosis of dementia of the
Alzheimer’s type and observed Dorothy to be “confused and forgetful” and only
“partially oriented.” Dorothy’s medical providers clearly believed Dorothy was
mentally incompetent to conduct business regarding her financial affairs.
Furthermore, Robert, Eric, Randall, and Randall’s daughter all testified Dorothy
had experienced a decline in mental functioning, although they disagreed on the
extent of her decline.
Dorothy did not receive independent advice regarding the transfer of her
property to Randall. Randall contacted Schwickerath and took Dorothy to meet
with him for the sole purpose of preparing a deed to transfer the property.
Schwickerath met with Dorothy and Randall for less than an hour—meeting with
Dorothy individually for only fifteen to twenty minutes—before he prepared the
deed and Dorothy signed it. Schwickerath did not know about Dorothy’s
13
diagnoses and was unaware of her will, which provided all of her property was to
be divided equally among her children.
Based upon the foregoing facts and giving deference to the district court’s
credibility findings, we find the Estate presented clear, convincing, and
satisfactory evidence that Dorothy lacked the requisite mental capacity to
execute the deed transferring real estate to Randall. We affirm the district court’s
order setting aside the deed and declaring it void.
B. Attorney Fees
Both parties request an award of appellate attorney fees. Randall
requests appellate attorney fees of $4000. The Estate requests appellate
attorney fees of $2000. Neither party cites authority in support of its claim for
appellate attorney fees. Therefore, we decline to award appellate attorney fees
to either party. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (“Failure to cite authority in
support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”); see also Roberts
Equip. Div., Inc. v. Silver Lake Farms, Corp., No. 12-040, 2012 WL 5356126, at
*5 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2012).
IV. Conclusion
Based upon our de novo review of the record, we find the Estate
presented clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that Dorothy lacked the
requisite mental capacity to execute the deed conveying real estate to Randall.
We affirm the district court’s order setting aside the deed and declaring it void.
Additionally, because neither party cited any authority in support of its claim for
appellate attorney fees, we decline to award them.
AFFIRMED.