IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1993
Filed January 25, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF HELEN E. HOUSER, Deceased,
BONNIE FORBES,
Executor-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Marsha A.
Bergan, Judge.
Bonnie Forbes appeals the district court’s order removing her as co-
executor of her mother’s estate. AFFIRMED.
David D. Burbidge of Johnston, Stannard, Klesner, Burbidge & Fitzgerald
P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellant.
Thomas E. Maxwell of Leff Law Firm, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellee
Lawrence Houser.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
Bonnie Forbes was one of Helen Houser’s four surviving children. Forbes
served as Houser’s conservator and guardian while Houser was alive and
became executor of her estate after she died.
In time, two of Forbes’ brothers filed a petition to remove her as fiduciary.
The court concluded Forbes’ performance did not “warrant removal” but stated
Forbes’ “failure to communicate with the three other beneficiaries has caused
delays in settling the estate.” The court continued, “[Forbes] admits that she
does not speak to her brothers. She relies on legal counsel to communicate with
the other three beneficiaries. This is impractical under the circumstances of this
estate with so many miscellaneous matters to which the executor must attend.”
The court appointed one of the brothers, Lawrence Houser, as co-executor of the
estate and required “both co-executors” to sign “court-filings by the estate,” as
well as contracts.
Several months after this order was entered, Lawrence Houser petitioned
to remove Forbes as co-executor. He asserted she remained “unwilling[] to talk
directly to [him]” and insisted that all communication “go through [the estate’s
attorney.]” Following a hearing, the district court granted the petition. The court
determined Forbes “fail[ed] to perform an essential duty when she refuse[d] to
communicate with the co-executor” and “failed to abide by a lawful order of the
court when she alone arranged for the estate to be bound by a rental
agreement.” The court removed her as co-executor and appointed Lawrence
Houser “as the sole executor.” Forbes appealed.
3
Iowa Code section 633.65 (2015) permits a court to remove a fiduciary
under several circumstances, including when the fiduciary “has mismanaged the
estate, failed to perform any duty imposed by law,” or failed to follow “any lawful
order of” the court. Removal actions are tried in equity. See Iowa Code
§ 633.33; In re Estate of Rutter, 633 N.W.2d 740, 745 (Iowa 2001). Review of
actions tried in probate as equitable proceedings is de novo. In re Estate of
Thomann, 649 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2002). In reviewing executor-removal
decisions, this court has superimposed an abuse of discretion standard on the
statutory de novo standard of review. See Estate of Randeris v. Randeris, 523
N.W.2d 600, 604 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (“In questions involving the removal of an
executor by the probate court, we review the entire record under an abuse of
discretion standard.”).
Forbes’ non-cooperation with her siblings began long before her mother’s
death. As early as 2005, the court found she was “consistently and unjustifiably
resistant to visitation by [her mother’s] three adult sons.” The court ruled her “in
contempt of court for her willful failure to comply with the terms and conditions of
the order appointing her as guardian.”
After her mother’s death, Forbes remained intransigent. In the order
appointing her brother as co-executor, the court found she failed to communicate
with her siblings about a scheduled viewing and appraisal of estate property.
The court stated “the executor’s refusal to talk with the other three
beneficiaries—particularly when combined with the history of mistrust in the
family—results [in] the other three beneficiaries being frustrated with the
executor.”
4
Even after Forbes lost her status as sole executor, she continued to ignore
her siblings. Lawrence Houser testified it had been “almost three years since”
their mother passed away and, during the entire time, Forbes failed to
communicate with them or provide them with requested documents. In
response, Forbes essentially conceded she transmitted communications with her
siblings through her attorney and failed to provide them with documents
underlying her financial reports. “[U]nwarranted hostility between the executor
. . . and the beneficiaries” may warrant removal. Id. at 606. On our de novo
review, we are persuaded the district court did not abuse its discretion in
removing Forbes as co-executor. See id.
AFFIRMED.