For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
Serena Konrardy and Carrie Rigdon, n/k/a Carrie Burmeister
v.
Vincent Angerer Trust and Dewitt Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee of the Vincent Angerer Trust
In plaintiffs’ action requesting the district court determine that the proper valuation date for the shares of defendant trust is the date of distribution rather than the date of the grantor’s death, defendants were granted permission for an interlocutory appeal of a ruling denying their motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed, finding the district court had not erred in determining genuine issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs’ action is barred by the statute of limitations and whether defendants’ interpretation of the trust document is correct. Defendants seek further review.
Resister
Serena Konrardy and Carrie Rigdon, n/k/a Carrie Burmeister
Applicant
Vincent Angerer Trust and Dewitt Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee of the Vincent Angerer Trust
Attorney for the Resister
Harold J. DeLange II
Attorney for the Applicant
Elliott R. McDonald III
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Mar 05, 2019 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, J. (8 pages)
In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants argue the district court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment. OPINION HOLDS: I. Because the defendants failed to show that the plaintiffs reasonably should have known of the existence of their breach-of-trust claim based on an accounting or report they provided to the plaintiffs, we affirm the order denying summary judgment on the grounds the plaintiffs’ claim violates the statute of limitations found in Iowa Code section 633A.4504 (2017). II. The defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the merits because they failed to show that their interpretation of the trust document is correct as a matter of law.