In the Matter of the Estate of Ronald Timothy Bacon Justin Bacon v. Sarah Bacon ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1270
Filed March 22, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD TIMOTHY BACON
JUSTIN BACON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
SARAH BACON,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Richard H.
Davidson, Judge.
An heir seeking to contest his father’s will appeals the grant of summary
judgment in favor of his half-sister, the executor. AFFIRMED.
Brian E. Jorde and Christian T. Williams of Domina Law Group P.C.,
L.L.O., Omaha, Nebraska, for appellant.
Michael T. Gibbons and Aimee C. Bataillon Smith of Woodke & Gibbons,
P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, Nebraska, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
This appeal involves an action to contest the will of Ronald Bacon, filed by
his son, Justin Bacon. Executor Sarah Bacon moved to dismiss her half-
brother’s action, alleging his objection was untimely under Iowa Code
section 633.309 (2015). The parties agreed Sarah’s filing could be converted
into a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. On appeal,
Justin contends the district court abused its discretion by allowing Sarah to offer
an affidavit and exhibits in conjunction with her brief in support of summary
judgment. He also argues an issue of material fact exists as to whether Sarah
complied with the notice requirements of section 633.304.
Given the specific facts of this case, we find the district court did not abuse
its discretion in allowing Sarah to submit additional evidence in support of her
motion for summary judgment. And because we find the address where Sarah
sent the notices was reasonably calculated to provide Justin with actual notice of
the proceedings, we affirm the district court’s ruling.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Ronald Bacon died on July 20, 2015. Eight days later, his will was
admitted to probate. The will—executed on June 30, 2015—indicated Ronald
was not married but had two children, Justin and Sarah. The will devised all of
Ronald’s property to Sarah, per stirpes. Sarah was appointed executor, and she
arranged to have notices of probate and appointment of executor published in
the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks from August 1 to August 8. On
September 10, Sarah’s attorney sent the notices to Justin at an address on West
Dakota Street in Fremont, Nebraska.
3
About four months later, on January 12, 2016, Justin filed a petition to set
aside the will. Among other things, Justin alleged “[n]otice was not provided as
required by law,” but he did not elaborate further on the issue. Sarah, who had
obtained new counsel, filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, citing her prior
attorney’s affidavit of mailing and challenging Justin’s petition as untimely under
Iowa Code section 633.309 (requiring will contests to be initiated “within the later
to occur of four months from the date of second publication of notice of
admission of the will to probate or one month following the mailing of the notice
to all heirs of the decedent and devisees under the will whose identities are
reasonably ascertainable, at such persons’ last known addresses”). Justin did
not file a resistance to Sarah’s motion.
On March 4, 2016, the district court held a hearing on Sarah’s motion to
dismiss. With consent from the parties, the court converted the motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment, noting that, unlike a motion to dismiss, “a
motion for summary judgment would entertain affidavits that would support either
one of [the parties’] positions.” Justin offered his own affidavit at the hearing,
which contended his mailing and last known address was on North Garfield
Street in Fremont and “[n]o notice of the probate of my father’s Will or any other
details were sent to this address.”1 He did not indicate whether he received
notice of the probate proceedings. In conjunction with the affidavit, Justin
submitted several documents confirming his attested address, including a state-
issued identification card and correspondence with his attorney. Justin’s attorney
submitted an affidavit and attached a Westlaw “People Map Search” printout for
1
Justin did not produce or file the exhibits before the hearing.
4
Justin—which the attorney described as “a commonly used service and
information gathering tool normally relied upon in the practice of law”—listing the
North Garfield address but not the West Dakota address where Sarah’s first
counsel sent the notices.
No evidence was offered on Sarah’s behalf at the hearing. When asked
whether the parties were ready to argue the motion, Sarah’s new attorney
explained he had not been involved with the original mailing of notices and had
not investigated the notice issue himself. At the suggestion of Justin’s attorney,
the court directed the parties to submit briefs in the matter by March 28. The
court left open the possibility of “additional oral argument.”
Four days before the briefing deadline, Sarah submitted a “statement in
support of motion for summary judgment” along with four attachments, including
her own affidavit. The affidavit regarding the “last known address of Justin
Bacon” attested that Sarah, as executor of her father’s will, informed her attorney
where to send the notices based on text messages she exchanged with her half-
brother in which he “personally advised” her of his address.
Sarah also attested that attached printouts showing the text messages
were true and accurate copies of her communications with Justin about his
address in 2015. In the first exchange, dated July 17, Sarah wrote: “What’s your
address Tom will come get you right now.” The response stated: “The address is
[****] W Dakota.” Sarah also attached the affidavit of family friend Tom Wingate,
who stated he picked up Justin at that West Dakota address on July 17. On
August 24, Sarah sent this message: “Can you text me your address again and
ssc#, trying to see if we collect a benefit from social security for dad.” Again, she
5
was given the same address on West Dakota Street. On September 14, four
days after Sarah’s first attorney sent the notices of probate and appointment of
executor to the West Dakota address, Sarah received the following message:
“Oh I forgot to tell you I got a letter from Dad’s lawyer’s office the other day not
sure why.” Sarah responded: “Probably something to do with probate court I’m
guessing.” The West Dakota address was confirmed a final time on December
12 when Sarah texted Justin that she was on her way to his home.
The moniker “Skoob Bacon” followed each text message Sarah attached
to her affidavit. To explain this detail, Sarah included a screenshot2 of a
Facebook profile for “Justin Skoob Bacon,” which she alleged belonged to her
half-brother.
Justin filed a responsive brief with the district court on March 28, objecting
to Sarah’s exhibits as untimely and “outside of the summary judgment record.”
He also complained her exhibits were “replete with hearsay” and “lacking
sufficient and proper foundation.” He asked the district court to deny Sarah’s
motion for summary judgment because his exhibits demonstrated she “did not
perform a diligent search for Justin Bacon’s last known addresses and/or failed to
perfect Notice at [Justin] Bacon’s last known address.”
On June 29, 2016, the district court granted Sarah’s motion for summary
judgment and dismissed Justin’s petition contesting their father’s will. The court
accepted Sarah’s additional evidence and determined she satisfied the last-
known-address requirement of section 633.304 by sending the notices to the
2
A “screenshot” is a tangible printout of material that exists in digital form. See 7 Laurie
Kratky Doré, Iowa Practice Series: Evidence § 5.901:11 (2015).
6
West Dakota address supplied by Justin. Justin appeals from the grant of
summary judgment.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
We review the district court’s decision to consider Sarah’s affidavit and
exhibits in connection with a motion for summary judgment for an abuse of
discretion. See Schroeder v. Fuller, 354 N.W.2d 780, 782 (Iowa 1984). The
party seeking reversal has the burden to show the district court exercised its
discretion “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” Kulish v. Ellsworth, 566 N.W.2d 885, 889 (Iowa 1997) (citation
omitted).
We review the district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment for
correction of legal error. See Thomas v. Gavin, 838 N.W.2d 518, 521 (Iowa
2013). The purpose of the summary-judgment rule is to allow the moving party,
when there is no dispute of material fact, to obtain a prompt judgment without the
unnecessary expense of a trial. Liska v. First Nat’l Bank, 310 N.W.2d 531, 534
(Iowa 1981). “Summary judgment is appropriate if ‘the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Thomas, 838 N.W.2d
at 521 (quoting Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3)). On appeal of a summary-judgment
ruling, we must decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and
whether the district court applied the law correctly. See McComas-Lacina
Constr. Co. v. Able Constructors, 641 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Iowa 2002). We view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who opposes the motion for
7
summary judgment; the party moving for summary judgment has the burden to
demonstrate there are no genuine issues of material fact. See id. at 843–44.
III. Analysis
A. Summary Judgment Record
Justin frames his first issue as follows:
The District Court Erred in Permitting Petitioner-Appellee Sarah
Bacon to Belatedly Offer Evidence After the Summary Judgment
Record was Closed and When No Such Request was Made or
Granted on the Record at the Time of Summary Judgment and then
Further Erred by Permitting no Objections or Rebuttal Evidence by
Mr. Bacon.
Justin’s issue heading outreaches the body of his argument. We will address his
initial claim the district court erred in allowing Sarah to submit an affidavit and
supporting exhibits with her brief. But his subsequent claim the court “further
erred by permitting no objections or rebuttal evidence” on behalf of Justin
receives no further attention in his appellant’s brief and finds no support in the
record. Accordingly, we decline to address that allegation. See Midwest Auto.
III, LLC v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417, 431 n.2 (Iowa 2002) (holding
random mention of issue, without elaboration or supporting authority, is
insufficient to merit appellate consideration); Miller v. Griffith, 66 N.W.2d 505, 507
(Iowa 1954) (giving no consideration to an assignment of error which fails to
pinpoint where in the record the mistake occurred).
Justin contends the district court should not have considered Sarah’s
affidavit and supporting materials filed with her brief in support of summary
judgment. He ventures that an Iowa court may never allow the party moving for
summary judgment to offer a supplemental affidavit after the matter has been
8
fully submitted. He contends Iowa law permits only the non-moving party to
submit additional evidence, and then only upon a showing of excusable neglect.
See Schroeder, 354 N.W.2d at 782. Justin continues that, even if we determine
a moving party may introduce additional evidence in some circumstances, the
district court still abused its discretion here because language in Justin’s petition
apprised Sarah that he was not given adequate notice under Iowa law and
Sarah’s attorney had ample time to investigate the notice issue before filing the
motion to dismiss.3
Quoting Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.981(5), Sarah responds: “The
court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions,
answers to interrogatories, further affidavits, or oral testimony.” She continues
that rule 1.443(1) gives the court discretion to permit such evidence at any time
“where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect” and that neither rule
1.981(5) nor 1.443(1) is limited to the non-moving party. Sarah argues the
district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing her additional evidence and
cites extenuating circumstances supporting the court’s decision, such as the
conversion of her motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and her
second attorney’s lack of involvement with providing notice to Justin.
As an initial matter, we reject Justin’s contention a moving party may
never submit a supplemental affidavit or other supporting exhibits in a summary-
3
Justin also asserts the additional affidavits and attachments Sarah filed “are hearsay,
contain hearsay within hearsay, [and] are lacking in necessary and sufficient foundation.”
Justin does not explain these objections, nor does he cite any authority in support of his
arguments. Accordingly, we decline to address them. 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 Harrington v. Univ. of N. Iowa, 726 N.W.2d 363, 367 n.4 (Iowa
2007).
9
judgment proceeding. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.443(1), .981(5). Justin relies upon
two cases—Bitner v. Ottumwa Community School District, 549 N.W.2d 295, 301
(Iowa 1996), and Schroeder, 354 N.W.2d at 782—but neither case proves his
point. In Bitner, the court construed rule 237(f) (now rule 1.981(6)), which
addresses the situation where affidavits are unavailable to the party opposing a
motion for summary judgment. See 549 N.W.2d at 299–300; see also id. at 301(describing rule as “an ‘out’ for a party who legitimately needs additional time to
gather facts essential to justify its opposition when faced by a summary judgment
motion”). While Justin is correct that rule 1.981(6) applies only to the nonmoving
party, that rule does not prevent a court from considering the “further affidavits”
of either party under rule 1.981(5). And in Schroeder, the court construed a
previous version of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.443(1)(b), which gives the
court discretion whether to consider an untimely affidavit. See 354 N.W.2d at
782. Contrary to Justin’s assertion, neither rule 1.443(1)(b) nor the Schroeder
decision prohibit the court from exercising similar discretion in relation to
supplemental affidavits submitted by the moving party.
Under rule 1.981(2), Sarah, as the proponent of the will, was allowed to
move for summary judgment at any time, with or without supporting affidavits.
The parties agreed with the court’s proposal to treat Sarah’s motion to dismiss as
a motion for summary judgment because she was relying on matters outside the
pleadings to show Justin’s will-contest petition was untimely. See Troester v.
Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 328 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Iowa 1982) (suggesting,
where evidence is required to show party lacks authority to proceed, using
summary-judgment procedure is better practice).
10
When the court—with the consent of the parties—converted Sarah’s
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, the parties had not
followed the standard path under rule 1.981. Sarah had not attached any
supporting documents to her motion,4 and Justin had not filed a written
resistance. When the court asked Sarah’s attorney whether he was prepared to
proceed with argument after Justin presented his evidence at the hearing,
Sarah’s attorney responded:
I’m really not able to, Your Honor, because I had nothing to do with
the original mailing and the executor is not here to advise me what
anyone’s address was at any prior time. My motion, I relied upon
what has been filed in the court file. But I’m—I have not
investigated those issues myself.
Justin’s attorney suggested: “Perhaps we’d like briefs then?” The court ordered
the parties to submit “some memorandum.” By granting both parties an
opportunity to submit briefs or memoranda—which under rule 1.981 are generally
submitted with supportive affidavits—the court recognized the insufficiency of the
record before it and implicitly permitted the inclusion of additional evidence. See
Lewison v. Howard R. Green Co., No. 08-0756, 2009 WL 1066514, at *2–3 (Iowa
Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009) (finding rule 1.981(3) did not prohibit the filing of
subsequent affidavits with a surreply and allowing “additional statement of facts
or affidavits” when resisting party asked for an opportunity to respond to “new
evidence/arguments” raised by opposing parties in supplemental statements of
4
We note that a party moving for summary judgment is not required to attach supporting
affidavits, but unlike a motion to dismiss, those documents are permitted to be submitted
with a motion for summary judgment. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(2); see also Carroll v.
Martir, 610 N.W.2d 850, 856 (Iowa 2000) (“Motions to dismiss . . . are generally limited
to the pleadings, and facts outside the pleadings are not to be considered. Summary
judgment is the appropriate remedy when parties wish to rely on facts outside the
pleadings.” (citation omitted)).
11
facts with attached depositions). Accordingly, the court did not abuse its
discretion when it considered Sarah’s affidavit and exhibits that were submitted in
accordance with its order.
Even assuming the court’s order did not contemplate the submission of
additional evidence, we find no abuse of discretion here. See Iowa R. Civ. P.
1.981(5); see also Schroeder, 354 N.W.2d at 782 (“The court has discretion to
refuse to consider an untimely affidavit or to consider it, based on the
circumstances in a particular case.”). Because Justin did not file either a written
resistance or his exhibits beforehand, Sarah did not know the specific grounds of
his resistance until after the hearing had begun, which is atypical with a motion
for summary judgment. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3) (requiring affidavits
supporting the resistance to be filed in conjunction with the resistance and before
the time set for hearing unless otherwise ordered by the court). In addition, as
Sarah points out, she originally filed the motion as a motion to dismiss and
additional affidavits are generally improper in that context. See George v. D.W.
Zinser Co., 762 N.W.2d 865, 867–68 (Iowa 2009) (noting that, unlike a motion to
dismiss, a motion for summary judgment typically relies on matters outside the
pleadings). And finally, Sarah filed her additional evidence in advance of the
briefing deadline, which gave Justin a chance to respond. Justin did respond,
contending the exhibits were untimely and launching evidentiary objections, but
he did not counter Sarah’s evidence with a responsive affidavit, request more
12
time to respond, or request oral argument in the matter. On appeal, Justin does
not argue he was denied a fair opportunity to respond to Sarah’s evidence. 5
Accordingly, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in
considering Sarah’s affidavit and exhibits.
B. Notice at Last Known Address
Justin next argues we should reverse the district court’s order granting
Sarah’s motion for summary judgment because the evidence demonstrates she
failed to “take steps to ascertain the proper last known address for mailing Notice
of these proceedings.” Iowa Code section 633.304(2) requires the executor to
give notice by ordinary mail of the admission of the will to probate and the
appointment of the executor to each heir of the decedent, whose identity is
reasonably ascertainable, at his or her last known address. Notice must be
“reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties
of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950); see also In re Estate of Weidman, 476 N.W.2d 357, 360–61 (Iowa 1991)
(relying, in part, on Mullane to conclude due process requires executor to provide
notice by mail to all known or reasonably ascertainable heirs-at-law). Sarah
contends she satisfied this requirement by verifying Justin’s address with Justin
himself.
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Justin, we find
he demonstrated no genuine issue of material fact for trial. Justin’s affidavits and
5
The district court’s ruling addresses Justin’s evidentiary objections, and the record
does not reflect any request by Justin to submit rebuttal evidence.
13
attachments establish he received mail at the North Garfield address. But Justin
does not refute he also received mail at the West Dakota address, nor does he
deny receiving the required notices at that address. Cf. Cowell v. All-Am., Inc.,
308 N.W.2d 92, 95 (Iowa 1981) (finding more than one address may suffice as
the “last known address” under Iowa Code section 17A.19(2)). Moreover,
Sarah’s affidavit and text-message exhibits demonstrate she sent the notices to
the address provided by Justin, and Justin promptly acknowledged receipt of
those notices.6 See In re Estate of Liddle, No. 12-1597, 2013 WL 3458242, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. June 26, 2013) (finding notice sent to will contestant at business
address rather than residential address was “an address reasonably calculated
to provide [contestant] with actual notice of the probate proceedings”). Although
the first text-message exchange establishes only that Justin could be picked up
at the West Dakota address on July 17, 2015, the following text messages
confirm Justin wished to receive mail at the West Dakota address. See L.F. Noll
Inc. v. Eviglo, 816 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Iowa 2012) (noting “the meaning of the term
‘address’ depends on the context in which it is used”). Because Justin personally
provided the address to Sarah, her attorney was not obliged to research the
matter further as Justin suggests. Accordingly, we find the West Dakota address
was an address reasonably calculated to provide Justin with actual notice, and
we affirm the district court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
6
Justin argues that because the year is not included in the text-message printouts, we
cannot be sure the exchange occurred in 2015. But Sarah, who was a competent party
to authenticate the text messages, attested they occurred in 2015, and that fact was
substantiated by other contextual evidence in the record. Further, Justin does not
directly deny he sent the text messages about his address to Sarah in 2015.