In re Estate of Johnson - 739 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2007)

Rule:

A conveyance of the homestead, if the owner was married, was not valid, unless and until the spouse of the owner executed the same or a like instrument, or a power of attorney for the execution of the same or a like instrument.

Facts:

Roy and Emogene Johnson purchased a home in Van Meter, Iowa in 1963. They were married and took title to the home as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Emogene then suffered a severe stroke in 1998. Roy and the children felt Emogene would not live long, and the family decided that Emogene should transfer title in her automobile to Roy, as well as her interest in the homestead. On November 24, 1998, Emogene purportedly executed a power of attorney in her hospital room, authorizing her daughters to sell Emogene’s property, but not her homestead. On January 4, 1999, Emogene purportedly executed another power of attorney, authorizing her daughter to convey or encumber Emogene's interest in the homestead. Subsequently, the agent signed a quitclaim conveying Emogene and Roy’s interest in their homestead solely to Roy. On December 17, 1999, Roy suddenly passed away, survived by his ailing wife Emogene, and three children. Roy left a will that gave all of his property to his three children in equal shares, although he did not specifically disinherit Emogene. The executor of Roy’s estate filed a final report in Roy’s estate, which Emogene objected to, claiming that the transfers of her car and her interest in the homestead were illegal because she was incompetent when the powers of attorney were executed. However, the district court held Roy unilaterally terminated the joint tenancy in the homestead by his act of conveying his interest to himself in fee simple because the deed constituted an expression of his intent to destroy the joint tenancy. The district court found Emogene was clearly incompetent at the time she signed the powers of attorney, which invalidated the transfer of her interest in the property to Roy under the deed. As a result, the district court concluded title to the homestead was split between Emogene and Roy's estate as tenants in common in "undivided one-half" shares. Emogene appealed the district court ruling concerning the title to the homestead. Emogene died during the pendency of the appeal.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the joint tenancy in the parties' homestead severed?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that Emogene's incompetence rendered the conveyance of her interest invalid. Normally, Emogene's incompetence would not prohibit Roy from conveying his own property interest held in joint tenancy with her. However, the interest of a spouse in homestead property was protected by Iowa Code section 561.13, which provided that a conveyance of the homestead, if the owner was married, was not valid, unless and until the spouse of the owner executed the same or a like instrument, or a power of attorney for the execution of the same or a like instrument. In the case at bar, Roy was clearly attempting to convey the homestead, albeit his own interest to himself. Thus, the plain language of the statute prohibited Roy from doing so unless Emogene joined in the pursuit pursuant to the statute. The deed was totally void. Moreover, the court held that Roy's intent was not aligned with the objective his estate seeks to accomplish in this proceeding. As a result, the property remained in joint tenancy, and Emogene's right of survivorship took effect upon Roy's death. The property should be distributed in accordance with Emogene’s will.