Midwestone Bank, the of the Estate of Wilma M. Harbison v. Donald Lee Harbison

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1826
Filed September 10, 2015
MIDWESTONE BANK, the executor
of the ESTATE OF WILMA M.
HARBISON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DONALD LEE HARBISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Randy S.
DeGeest, Judge.
Former executor challenges judgment entered against him for breach of
fiduciary duty. AFFIRMED.
Douglas L. Tindal of Tindal Law Office PLC, Washington, for appellant.
Joseph T. Moreland of Hayek, Brown, Moreland & Smith, L.L.P., Iowa
City, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Donald Harbison, the former executor of his mother’s estate, appeals from
the judgment in the suit brought by the bank successor executor against him for
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidential relationship arising out
Harbison’s self-dealing while acting as the attorney-in-fact for his mother for
several years prior to her death. Following trial, the court found Harbison
breached his fiduciary duty in seven particulars and entered judgment against
Harbison and in favor of the estate for a total of $160,323.85. On appeal,
Harbison challenges the district court’s credibility findings and calculation of
damages.
Review of this equitable action is de novo. See Iowa Code § 633.33
(2013); Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We are not bound by the district court’s findings
of fact or conclusions of law, but we do give weight to the district court’s
credibility determinations. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); In re Estate of
Warrington, 686 N.W.2d 198, 202 (Iowa 2004).
We conclude the district court’s findings are supported by the record and
its conclusions of law are without error. We adopt them as our own. Harbison
was engaged in self-dealing contrary to the fiduciary duty owed his mother. See
Mendenhall v. Judy, 671 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Iowa 2003) (“A transfer to a grantee
standing in a confidential or a fiduciary relationship to the grantor is
presumptively fraudulent.”). He failed to carry his heavy burden of establishing
good faith on his part and voluntary and intelligent action on his mother’s part in
approving the challenged transactions. See Jackson v. Schrader, 676 N.W.2d
3
599, 605 (Iowa 2003) (stating to rebut the presumption of fraud the fiduciary must
produce clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence he acted in good faith and
the grantor’s action were free, voluntary, and intelligent). The damages award is
supported by the record. See Olson v. Nieman’s, LTD., 579 N.W.2d 299, 309
(Iowa 1998) (noting damages may be recovered if there is a reasonable basis in
the evidence for inferring or approximating them).
We have considered each of the parties’ arguments, whether or not set
forth in full herein, and we affirm the judgment of the district court without further
opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a)-(e).
AFFIRMED.