Dear wizestguy,
Here is the full text of the case. I hope it will be useful for you.
Regards,
Scriptor
491 N.W.2d 518
18 A.L.R.5th 962
George W. HUFFEY and Jean Huffey, Appellants,
v.
Joseph LEA, Dorothy Lea, Gilbert Lea, Florence Flaherty, Linda Racek,
Theresa Lea, Anthony Lea, Lavonne Lea-Peterson, Donna Lea-Faber,
Ambrose Lea, and Eunice Lea, Appellees.
No. 91-515.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Oct. 21, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1992.
David J. Dutton and J. Scott Bayne, Dutton, Braun, Staack,
Hellman, and Iversen, Waterloo, for appellants.
Andrew P. Nelson, Meyer, Lorentzen and Nelson, Decorah, for
appellees Lavonne Lea-Peterson, Gilbert Lea, Donna Lea-Faber and
Florence Flaherty.
Mary Jane White, Decorah, for appellees Ambrose Lea and Eunice Lea.
Harry L. Haywood, Eldora, for appellee Dorothy Lea.
Michael J. Moon, Cartwright, Druker and Ryden, Marshalltown,
for appellee Theresa Lea.
J. Vance Jorgensen, Mason City, for appellee Joseph Lea.
Michael A. Smith, of Lundy, Butler and Smith, P.C., Eldora,
for appellee Anthony Lea.
Considered en banc.
SCHULTZ, Justice.
The principal issue on appeal is whether the doctrine of claim
preclusion prevents an action for tortious interference with a bequest
when the action is not brought with the underlying will contest. The
district court and the court of appeals held that the failure to join
the tort action with the will contest bars a later action. We
disagree.
This is a dismissal of the action based on the pleadings;
therefore, we accept those allegations as true. We also take judicial
notice of the appellate decision involving the will contest, Matter of
Estate of Olson, 451 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa App.1989).
This appeal has its genesis in the wills of Hjalmar Olson and
his wife Margaret, whose maiden name was Lea. Following their marriage
in 1946, Margaret and Hjalmar lived on a farm until their deaths in
1986. The Olsons did not have children; however, they had a close
relationship with Hjalmar's nephew, George Huffey. Huffey lived with
the Olsons for several years and after that was a tenant on the Olson
farm. For further details of the relationship, see Matter of Estate of
Olson, 451 N.W.2d at 35.
On June 18, 1986, two days after Hjalmar's death, Margaret
executed a will. Under this will, she, like her husband before her,
provided that the Olson farm should become the property of George
Huffey. In July 1986, Margaret executed a new will revoking her June
18 will. Under the new will, George Huffey would not receive the Olson
farm and her brother, Ambrose Lea, and his children would receive the
bulk of her estate.
Margaret died in August 1986 and the July will was admitted to
probate. George and Jean Huffey (Huffeys) commenced an action
contesting the will. The case was tried to a jury which found that
Margaret lacked testamentary capacity and that the July will was
procured by undue influence. The defendants to the will contest
successfully moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a
new trial. On appeal, the court of appeals reinstated the jury
verdict. Id. at 37.
On December 5, 1990, plaintiffs commenced this action against
defendants Ambrose Lea, Eunice Lea, his wife, and their children
(Leas). We are concerned with the tort actions which are counts one
and two of the petition, maintaining that the defendants unduly
influenced Margaret and tortiously interfered with her intent to
devise her farm to George. They seek money damages for legal fees,
loss of farming time, mental anguish and embarrassment.
In addition to dismissing the tort action under the doctrine
of claim preclusion, the district court gave an additional ground for
dismissing Jean Huffey's claim by ruling that she was not a real party
in interest. The court also granted Donna Lea-Faber's motion to quash
service. The court did not rule on the affirmative defense that the
action was barred by the statute of limitations. 1 Huffeys challenge
these rulings on appeal. Leas cross-appeal on the court's failure to
rule on their limitation defense. Our review is for errors at law. See
Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
I. Tortious interference with a bequest. Frohwein v.
Haesemeyer, 264 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 1978), we recognized a law action for
tortious interference with a bequest. Id. at 795. We explained that we
could see no compelling reason for not extending the tort of wrongful
interference with business advantage to a noncommercial context. Id.
Intentional interference with an existing or prospective contract is
described in Restatement (Second) of Torts, sections 766A and 766B
(1979), and continues to be recognized in Iowa as a basis for recovery
of damages in civil tort actions. Nesler v. Fisher & Co., Inc., 452
N.W.2d 191, 194-96 (Iowa 1990).
The Restatement also has addressed the concept of wrongful
interference within other forms of advantageous economic relations.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, ch. 37A (1979). Under this chapter,
section 774B relates to the tort of intentional interference with
inheritance or gift. This section provides:
One who by fraud or other tortious means intentionally prevents
another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that
he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to others for
the loss of the inheritance or gift.
In discussing the remedies available under this section, the
Restatement recognized that the normal remedy for the loss suffered by
the one deprived of the legacy or gift is an action in tort. § 774B
cmt. e. These remedies include recovery of damages for pecuniary loss,
consequential loss and emotional distress. Restatement § 774A. A claim
for emotional distress in tortious interference claims does not
require proof of outrageous conduct. Nesler, 452 N.W.2d at 199-200.
II. The doctrine of claim preclusion. As previously indicated,
the fighting issue involves application of the doctrine of claim
preclusion to Huffeys' tort action. Leas defend the district court's
ruling by asserting that the tort action involves the same "claim"
that was advanced in Huffeys' prior will contest. As an initial
matter, we discuss the doctrine of claim preclusion.
As a general rule, the doctrine of claim preclusion bars
further litigation on the same "claim" or cause of action.
Leuchtenmacher v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 460 N.W.2d 858, 859-60
(Iowa 1990). Under this doctrine, an adjudication in a former suit
between the same parties on the same claim "is final as to all matters
which could have been presented to the court for determination, and a
party must litigate all matters growing out of its claim at one time
rather than in separate actions." Id. at 860. The court explained:
Claim preclusion under the doctrine of res judicata is based
on the principle that a party may not split or try his claim
piecemeal, but must put in issue and try his entire claim or put forth
his entire defense in the case on trial.
....
[To make that determination, it] is necessary to determine
whether plaintiff's first and second actions were the same claim or
cause of action within the meaning of this principle.
Id. (quoting B & B Asphalt Co. v. T.S. McShane Co., 242 N.W.2d
279, 286 (Iowa 1976)). A second claim is likely to be considered the
same as a first claim, and therefore precluded, "if the acts
complained of, and the recovery demanded, are the same, or when the
same evidence will support both actions." Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d
at 860. We now examine whether the will contest and the tort action
are the same claim or cause of action within the meaning of claim
preclusion. We do not believe that they are.
When a will is contested on grounds of undue influence and
lack of testamentary capacity, as it was here, the required proof
focuses on the testator's mental strength and intent and whether
infirmities or undue influence have affected the disposition of
property under the will. See Olson, 451 N.W.2d at 36. The necessary
proof in an action for intentional interference with a bequest or
devise focuses on the fraud, duress, or other tortious means
intentionally used by the alleged wrongdoer in depriving another from
receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift. Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 774B (1979). Stated simply, in a will contest, the
testator's intent or mental state is the key issue; in an intentional
interference case, the wrongdoer's unlawful intent to prevent another
from receiving an inheritance is the key issue. Because of the
differences in proof, the actions are not the same nor will the same
evidence necessarily support both actions.
In addition, the recovery demanded in the will contest and in
this action for intentional interference is not the same. In the will
contest, the recovery demanded was the setting aside of the will
procured by undue influence. In this action for intentional
interference, the recovery demanded is for attorney fees, value of
Huffey's time lost in his farm operation, and mental anguish incurred
in contesting the will. Obviously, the setting aside of the will did
not provide Huffey with recovery of his consequential damages. Huffey
also requested an award of punitive damages based on intentional and
malicious conduct of defendants. An adequate remedy has not been
provided by the mere setting aside of the will.
Our research has produced one case that seems to be relevant
and corresponds with our situation. Peffer v. Bennett, 523 F.2d 1323
(10th Cir.1975), the plaintiff brought an action in federal court for
malicious interference with prospective right of inheritance to
recover attorney fees and other expenses incurred in a will contest in
state court. In the will contest, the probate court found that there
was undue influence and invalidated a portion of the will. The
plaintiff sought to estop the defendant from litigating the issue of
actual fraud in her action for malicious interference. On appeal, the
Tenth Circuit held that under Colorado law, the issues of undue
influence and intentional interference were not the same. Id. at 1326.
The Tenth Circuit court reasoned that the probate court found only
that there was undue influence which affected the disposition of
property made in the will; while the tort of malicious interference
with the prospective right of inheritance requires proof of actual
intent whether the unlawful means employed is a fraud or undue
influence. Id. Although the court in Peffer considered issue rather
than claim preclusion, the discussion of issue preclusion presupposes
that the court believed undue influence and malicious interference
were separate claims. We agree with this reasoning and result.
We are aware that other jurisdictions have held that
successful will contestants cannot bring a subsequent action for
tortious interference with inheritance rights. See, e.g., Smith v.
Chatfield, 797 S.W.2d 508 (Mo.App.1990). We believe these cases are
either distinguishable or do not fit within the principles of our tort
law.
The damages sought in Smith were for costs and attorney fees
in contesting the will. The Missouri court concluded that plaintiff
received a complete remedy in the prior will contest. Smith, 797
S.W.2d at 510. We are strongly committed to the rule that attorney
fees are proper consequential damages when a person, through the tort
of another, was required to act in protection of his or her interest
by bringing or defending an action against a third party. Kimmel v.
Iowa Realty Co., Inc., 339 N.W.2d 374, 380 (Iowa 1983). Moreover, the
court in Smith noted that it was "not convinced that the rule against
splitting causes of action will always preclude a subsequent tort
action." Smith, 797 S.W.2d at 509-10 (quoting McMullin v. Borgers, 761
S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo.App.1988)).
An Illinois appeals court held that a litigant cannot bring a
tortious interference action unless it can be shown that a will
contest was not available or would not provide adequate relief. In re
Estate of Knowlson, 204 Ill.App.3d 454, 149 Ill.Dec. 813, 562 N.E.2d
277, 280 (1990). Thus, that jurisdiction does not recognize a second
action except in those cases where there is not adequate relief in the
will contest. The Illinois court did not speak to the matter of
attorney fees and costs.
Other courts have held that a person cannot bring an action
for intentional interference if adequate relief is available in a
probate proceeding. DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216, 218-20 (Fla.1981);
Johnson v. Stevenson, 269 N.C. 200, 152 S.E.2d 214, 217 (1967).
Our review of the cases indicates that there is no bright-line
rule requiring that the two actions be brought together. Rather, the
case law suggests that those courts considered factors such as: (1)
whether the plaintiff first sought a probate remedy or whether
bringing a probate remedy was even possible (e.g., in the case of a
destroyed will or in a case in which the alleged wrong was not
discovered until after the probate proceedings were completed); (2)
whether any probate remedy obtained by the plaintiff was adequate and
provided plaintiff with a complete remedy; (3) whether it was possible
to litigate all issues in the probate court; and (4) whether the
particular state probate court had jurisdiction of the tort claim.
Although there is some overlap, we do not believe the same
evidence supports the will contest and the action for intentional
interference with a bequest. Further, we agree with plaintiffs that a
complete remedy could not be provided in the will contest because of
additional costs involved in the appeals process. Therefore, we hold
the district court erred in dismissing Huffeys' action against these
defendants under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
III. Jean Huffey's claims. Huffeys' petition alleges that
Margaret executed a will on June 18 in which she gave the residue of
her estate, which included the farm, to George Huffey. Huffeys did not
allege any loss of property interest by George's wife, Jean. In
response to Leas' motion to dismiss, the trial court ruled that Jean
had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and is not
a real party in interest. On appeal, Huffeys maintain Jean has an
interest because she was a beneficiary under the July will, annulled
in the will contest, and because she has a statutory share of real
property possessed by her husband at anytime during the marriage.
A party plaintiff must have capacity to sue in order to
commence and maintain an action. Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co., 264
N.W.2d 763, 765 (Iowa 1978). Our test for standing is that "the
complaining party have a specific, personal, and legal interest in the
litigation, and be injuriously affected." Hawkeye Bancorporation v.
Iowa College Aid, 360 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Iowa 1985). We fail to see
where plaintiffs' pleadings alleged Jean's interest in the litigation.
Her claim of such an interest pursuant to Iowa Code sections 633.211
and 633.212, provisions for share of surviving spouse, vests upon the
death of the spouse. In re Estate of Jones, 239 Iowa 1364, 1366, 35
N.W.2d 36, 38 (1948). Unlike her husband, Jean Huffey was not a
beneficiary to the June will and cannot claim that she had a direct
interest in contesting the July will. We conclude the trial court
correctly dismissed her cause of action.
IV. Lea-Faber's motion to quash service. Huffeys attempted
service on defendant Donna Lea-Faber through the provisions of Iowa
Code section 617.3 (1989), the long-arm statute. Lea-Faber sought to
quash the service of notice, claiming she had not received notice
because it had not been mailed to her current address. Prior to a
ruling by the district court, Lea-Faber joined a motion to enlarge
rulings filed by defendant Joseph Lea. We conclude that Lea-Faber
generally appeared when she joined this motion. Fisher v. Keller
Indus., Inc., 485 N.W.2d 626, 628 (Iowa 1992). Consequently, we hold
the district court erred in quashing the service of notice and
dismissing Lea-Faber from the cause of action.
V. Statute of limitations. In their motions to dismiss, Leas
raised the affirmative defense that the action was barred by the
statute of limitation, Iowa Code section 614.1(2) (1989). This section
provides that actions, "founded on injuries to the person or
reputation, including injuries to relative rights, whether based on
contract or tort, or for a statute penalty," be brought within two
years after the cause accrues. Huffeys claim that the five-year period
of Iowa Code section 614.1(4) (1989), covering damage to property, is
applicable. Under its ruling dismissing the action, the district court
did not address this matter. Upon remand, the district court, at an
appropriate time, must rule on these defenses.
VI. Summary. In summary, we vacate the decision of the court
of appeals and affirm that portion of the district court's ruling
dismissing Jean Huffey's action against the defendants. We reverse the
district court's ruling quashing service on Donna Lea-Faber and the
dismissal of George Huffey's action on grounds of claim preclusion
against all defendants. We remand to the district court for further
proceedings by George Huffey against all defendants. Costs are
assessed one-half to Jean Huffey and the balance to all other
defendants.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
All Justices concur except McGIVERIN, C.J., joined by NEUMAN,
J., who dissent.
McGIVERIN, Chief Justice (dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent in part from the result of the majority
opinion and would affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs'
petition in its entirety.
I. The main issue in division II of the majority opinion
involves whether plaintiff George Huffey should be able to maintain
the present action for tortious interference with a bequest. For the
reasons that follow, I believe he should be precluded from doing so.
As an initial matter, Huffey's petition essentially asserts
that defendants tortiously interfered with Huffey's expectancy of a
bequest or devise from Margaret Olson.
We recognized the common law claim of tortious interference
with a bequest or devise Frohwein v. Haesemeyer, 264 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa
1978). We noted in Frohwein that the plaintiff therein was precluded
from instituting a will contest in probate court due to the running of
the applicable limitations period. 264 N.W.2d at 793 (citing Iowa Code
§ 633.309 (1975), as amended). We nevertheless held that the plaintiff
was not precluded from pursuing a law action against certain
defendants for their alleged wrongful interference with a bequest. Id.
at 795. Huffey contends that, because of our conclusion in Frohwein,
he should not be precluded from pursuing his present law action
despite the fact that he has already concluded a successful will
contest in probate. I believe this argument misconstrues our
conclusion in Frohwein and the rationale underlying the doctrine of
claim preclusion.
There are two main reasons that support the trial court's
dismissal of plaintiff George Huffey's petition.
A. An adequate remedy has already been provided. The Huffeys
succeeded in their will contest to have Margaret Olson's July 1986
will set aside and her June 1986 will probated. Under the June will,
George Huffey would receive most of Margaret's estate, including
several hundred acres of farm land. As the Huffeys succeeded in having
this will probated, George evidently then received everything to which
he was entitled under the will. This is the most he could have
received if the June will had been probated in the first place.
Therefore, I believe this is all the remedy to which George Huffey is
entitled.
The vast majority of courts require a plaintiff to first
institute a will contest in probate before plaintiff is allowed to
pursue a claim for tortious interference with a bequest. E.g.,
McGregor v. McGregor, 101 F.Supp. 848 (D.Colo.1951); DeWitt v. Duce,
408 So.2d 216 (Fla.1981); Estate of Jeziorski, 162 Ill.App.3d 1057,
114 Ill.Dec. 267, 516 N.E.2d 422 (1987); Robinson v. First State Bank,
97 Ill.2d 174, 73 Ill.Dec. 428, 454 N.E.2d 288 (1983); Smith v.
Chatfield, 797 S.W.2d 508 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); Johnson v. Stevenson, 269
N.C. 200, 152 S.E.2d 214 (1967). Our Frohwein case, 264 N.W.2d 792,
puts Iowa in a distinctly minority position of not requiring a
plaintiff to first bring a will contest.
Most courts hold that a plaintiff who succeeds in a will
contest is thereafter not entitled to pursue a claim for tortious
interference with a bequest because plaintiff received in the will
contest his or her full expectancy under the will and thus suffered no
actual damages. E.g., DeWitt, 408 So.2d at 220; In re Estate of
Hoover, 160 Ill.App.3d 964, 112 Ill.Dec. 382, 513 N.E.2d 991, 992
(1987); McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo.Ct.App.1988);
Johnson, 152 S.E.2d at 217.
Additionally, the majority of courts then allow plaintiff to
pursue a claim for tortious interference with a bequest only if there
are special circumstances making the will contest remedy inadequate.
E.g., McGregor, 101 F.Supp. at 850 (plaintiff may pursue tort claim if
will contest is impossible); DeWitt, 408 So.2d at 219 (plaintiff may
bring tort action if unable to discover fraud until after probate
period had run, or if defendant tortiously induced inter-vivos
transfer of estate assets, or if plaintiff unable to establish a
maliciously destroyed will); Jeziorski, 114 Ill.Dec. at 271, 516
N.E.2d at 426 (plaintiff may pursue tort action if defendant induced
inter-vivos transfers of estate assets and most probate assets were
outside of estate); Johnson, 152 S.E.2d at 217-18 (plaintiff may
pursue tort claim if fraud was practiced directly on plaintiff or on
probate court regarding the probate of a will); King v. Acker, 725
S.W.2d 750, 756 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (plaintiff may pursue tort claim if
expended extraordinary fees, such as administrator's fees, in pursuing
will contest).
In this case, Huffeys succeeded in their will contest and had
the June will probated. Therefore, George Huffey received everything
he would have received under the June will. He does not allege any
special circumstances indicating his remedy in probate was in any way
inadequate or that he did not receive everything to which he was
entitled under the June will. Because all of his expectations under
the June will have thus been fulfilled, I would hold that George
Huffey has suffered no damages and thus should be precluded from
obtaining further remedies through a tort action. He should not be
allowed two bites at the same apple.
Furthermore, the Iowa court will stand virtually alone in
allowing a plaintiff, after a successful will contest, to sue for
tortious interference with a bequest when plaintiff has not shown that
the will contest remedy was inadequate. Only one other court has
allowed a plaintiff to pursue, with no allegation of receiving an
inadequate probate remedy, a claim for tortious interference with a
bequest after successfully contesting a will in probate court. Peffer
v. Bennett, 523 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir.1975). The majority seems to base
its holding on that one case.
In any event, it appears George Huffey would be unable to
recover many, if any, of the damages he seeks in his claim for
tortious interference with a bequest. I have found no case that allows
a plaintiff claiming tortious interference with a bequest to receive
damages for lost work time or mental anguish and embarrassment, for
which George Huffey asks in his petition. Most other courts do not
allow plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in claims for tortious
interference with a bequest because plaintiff is only allowed to
recover what he or she expected to receive under the will, and
plaintiff does not expect to receive punitive damages under a will.
DeWitt, 408 So.2d at 220; Hoover, 513 N.E.2d at 992; Smith, 797 S.W.2d
at 510; McMullin, 761 S.W.2d at 720.
At most, Huffey could recover attorney fees. One court that
did allow plaintiffs to receive punitive damages specifically noted
the jury there had been instructed it could consider attorney fees
when considering punitive damages, and that the punitive damages
awarded happened to be the exact amount of plaintiff's attorney fees.
King, 725 S.W.2d at 756-57. In Peffer, the court allowed plaintiffs to
pursue their tortious interference claim only to recover damages which
the probate court could not have provided, which in that case were
attorney fees. 523 F.2d 1323.
I believe Huffey received an adequate remedy in probate
because he received everything to which he was entitled under
Margaret's June will. Because all of his expectations under the June
will have thus been fulfilled, I would hold George Huffey is not
entitled to any further reward and is thus precluded from pursuing a
claim for tortious interference with a bequest, which is substantially
the same claim made in the will contest action.
B. Claim preclusion bars the present action. I furthermore
believe res judicata, specifically claim preclusion, precludes Huffey
from pursuing a claim for tortious interference with a bequest because
those tort elements are virtually identical to those for undue
influence, the claim upon which he contested the July will.
As a general rule, the doctrine of claim preclusion bars
further litigation on the same "claim" or cause of action.
Leuchtenmacher v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 460 N.W.2d 858, 859-60
(Iowa 1990). Under this doctrine, an adjudication in a former suit
between the same parties on the same claim "is final as to all matters
which could have been presented to the court for determination, and a
party must litigate all matters growing out of its claim at one time
rather than in separate actions." Id. at 860; Gail v. Western
Convenience Stores, 434 N.W.2d 862, 863 (Iowa 1989) (final judgment on
merits of action precludes relitigation of issues which were or could
have been raised).
Claim preclusion under the doctrine of res judicata is based
on the principle that a party may not split or try his claim
piecemeal, but must put in issue and try his entire claim or put forth
his entire defense in the case on trial.
....
[To make that determination, it] is necessary to determine
whether plaintiff's first and second actions were the same claim or
cause of action within the meaning of this principle.
Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 860 (emphasis added) (quoting B
& B Asphalt Co. v. T.S. McShane Co., 242 N.W.2d 279, 286 (Iowa 1976)).
A second claim is likely to be considered the same as a first
claim, and therefore precluded, "if the acts complained of, and the
recovery demanded, are the same, or when the same evidence will
support both actions." Id. More specifically, when a valid and final
judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiff's claim,
"the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to
remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the
transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the
action arose." Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24, at
196 (1982)).
I believe Huffey's action for tortious interference with a
bequest constitutes basically the same "claim" as the undue influence
claim upon which his prior will contest was based. An examination of
the elements of each claim reveals that they are in substance the
same. We have said that the elements necessary to sustain a finding of
undue influence in the execution of a will in a will contest in
probate include: (1) the testator's susceptibility to undue influence;
(2) opportunity to exercise such influence and effect the wrongful
purpose; (3) disposition to influence unduly for the purpose of
procuring an improper favor; and (4) a result clearly the effect of
undue influence. In re Estate of Dankbar, 430 N.W.2d 124, 128 (Iowa
1988). Similarly, an action for intentional interference with a
bequest or devise may be maintained where "[o]ne who by fraud, duress
or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving
from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise
have received...." See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774B, at 58
(1965).
Although the legal elements of each claim do not parallel one
another with mathematical precision, it is apparent from the general
nature of each, and from review of the pleaded facts in this case,
that a law action for tortious interference with a bequest necessarily
must be supported by the same facts and evidence supporting a will
contest in probate based on undue influence. The Restatement
specifically provides that a law action for tortious interference
applies "when a testator has been induced by tortious means to make
his first will or not to make it; and it applies also when he has been
induced to change or revoke his will or not to change or revoke it."
See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774B comment b, at 58 (1965)
(emphasis added).
The majority states that an action for undue influence focuses
on the testator's intent. However, I point out that the second and
third elements of undue influence (opportunity to exercise undue
influence and effect a wrongful purpose, and disposition to unduly
influence) specifically address the wrongdoer's intent, rather than
the testator's intent. The wrongdoer's disposition (intent) to unduly
influence the testator in undue influence is necessarily the same
intent exhibited in a claim involving tortious interference with a
bequest or a devise. Thus, both actions involve the same "claim" for
purposes of applying the doctrine of claim preclusion.
This conclusion is not altered by the mere fact that Huffey is
presently seeking a remedy (damages) different from the remedy sought
in the will contest (the setting aside of the will). This is because
the rule barring subsequent actions on the same claim applies even
though the plaintiff in a subsequent action is prepared to "present
evidence or grounds or theories of the case not presented in the first
action" or to "seek remedies or forms of relief not demanded in the
first action." See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 25, at 209
(1982).
Where the plaintiff may in one action claim two or more
remedies cumulatively rather than alternatively, all arising from the
same transaction, but seeks fewer than all of these remedies, and a
judgment is entered that extinguishes the claim under the rules of
merger or bar, he is precluded from maintaining another action for the
other remedies.
See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 25 comments c and j,
at 211, 221 (1982). Attorney fees are simply one additional remedy
Huffey could have sought at the same time he sought to have the July
will set aside.
Furthermore, this conclusion is in no way inconsistent with
our holding in Frohwein. As stated above, we allowed the plaintiff in
Frohwein to proceed with his law action for tortious interference with
a bequest despite being precluded by the applicable limitations period
from bringing a probate action contesting the validity of the will.
264 N.W.2d at 795. However, this result in Frohwein does not foreclose
my conclusion that a subsequent tort action may not be maintained if
the tort claimant has already concluded a will contest in probate. We
specifically acknowledged in Frohwein that the "plaintiff's petition
in the law action could have been presented in a will contest." 264
N.W.2d at 795 (emphasis added).
Finally, there is nothing in our probate code that would have
precluded Huffey from pursuing his law action in conjunction with his
will contest. See Iowa Code § 633.33 ("Actions to ... contest wills
... shall be triable in probate as law actions...."); Iowa Code §
633.311 (same); Cleghorn v. Benjamin, 239 Iowa 455, 459, 31 N.W.2d
887, 889 (1948) (probate court has same jurisdiction as it would have
in either law or equity). Therefore, the district court would have had
jurisdiction of both claims had they both been brought at the same
time.
Thus, I would hold that will contestants such as George Huffey
must join with his probate action any claim against alleged wrongdoers
for tortious interference with a bequest if he seeks a remedy beyond
the mere setting aside of the will. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 22; Iowa Code §
633.312.
This view is supported by authority from other jurisdictions.
For example, in Jeziorski, the court held that successful will
contestants properly asserted their tortious interference claim in the
probate proceeding because subsequent actions for malicious
interference with an expectancy would constitute an impermissible
collateral attack on the order admitting the will to probate since the
claim could have been asserted with the will contest in the probate
proceedings. 516 N.E.2d at 424-25 (citing Nemeth v. Banhalmi, 125
Ill.App.3d 938, 81 Ill.Dec. 175, 188, 466 N.E.2d 977, 990 (1984)).
Other courts have endorsed a general policy of requiring probate
claimants to join in a will contest any claims for tortious
interference with a bequest or inheritance. See, e.g., Nemeth, 81
Ill.Dec. 175, 466 N.E.2d 977 (tortious interference claim properly
brought in probate with will contest); DeWitt, 408 So.2d 216
(plaintiffs could not pursue tortious interference claim after failing
to contest will in probate); Johnson, 152 S.E.2d 214 (grounds for
tortious interference were same as for will contest, thus tort not
available after probate proceedings concluded); In re Estate of
Legeas, 210 Cal.App.3d 385, 258 Cal.Rptr. 858 (1989) (judicial economy
and practicality demand tortious interference claim be brought in
probate with will contest).
Because the same facts and evidence may be used to prove both
undue influence and tortious interference with a bequest by an alleged
wrongdoer, judicial economy policies and claim preclusion rules
require that both claims be brought and heard together.
II. I would agree with the result in division III of the
majority opinion that affirms the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff
Jean Huffey's claim.
Additional analogous authority that Jean Huffey is not a real
party in interest is Estate of Pearson, 319 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 1982)
(testator's daughter-in-law was not an interested party with standing
to contest his will merely because there was pending a dissolution
action commenced after the testator's death giving the daughter-in-law
a beneficial interest in the contest because she would have received
pecuniary benefits by way of property, alimony, and child support if
her husband received a share of the testator's estate).
III. For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent from the
result reached by the majority. The court of appeals was correct in
affirming the district court's dismissal of counts I and II of
plaintiffs' petition.
NEUMAN, J., joins this dissent.
---------------
1) We note that some of the defendants have raised an issue not
addressed by the trial court. They claim that during the will contest
the trial court specifically instructed the jury that they could only
find that Dorothy and Theresa Lea were disposed to unduly influence
Margaret Olson and there was no legal issue of undue influence on the
part of the other defendants. A ruling on a motion to dismiss is
confined to the pleadings, and we believe that this is a matter more
suited for a ruling after the record is expanded. |
,
0 Comments
)