Date: 05-06-2022

Case Style:

Todd R. Rand v. Security National Corporation, d/b/a Security National Bank

Case Number: 21–0227

Judge: McDonald

Court: Supreme Court of Iowa on appeal from the District Court for Woodbury County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Stan Munger

Defendant's Attorney: Joel D. Vos

Description: Sioux City, Iowa civil litigation lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant probate law theory.

Todd R. Rand filed a separate suit outside probate against the personal representative
of the estate for claims arising out of and related to the personal representative’s
fees for administering the estate.

The probate court held three days of hearings on Security National’s fee
application. In a lengthy and well-reasoned decision, the probate court exercised
its discretion and reduced the fees to both Crary Huff and Security National
below the requested amounts. See Iowa Code § 633.197 (stating a personal
representative is “allowed such reasonable fees as may be determined by the
court for services rendered” (emphasis added)); In re Est. of Randeris v. Randeris,
523 N.W.2d 600, 607 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (reviewing probate court’s fee award
for an abuse of discretion). The probate court found “there was a significant and
unusual amount of work to be performed” by Security National in administering
Roger’s estate but held the claimed amount of time expended was nonetheless
“inflated or include[d] a large amount of unnecessary work.” The probate court
approved fees for ordinary services in the amount of $160,000.00 to Security
National (compared to its $394,782 request). The probate court approved fees for
ordinary services in the amount of $205,000 to Crary Huff (compared to its
$394,782 request). For extraordinary services, the probate court awarded Crary
Huff $110,568.23 in fees and costs (compared to its request for $137,791.98). In
total, the probate court reduced the fees to Security National and Crary Huff
nearly in half, from $927,355.98 to approximately $427,000. No party appealed
the order approving fees. The probate court later issued an award of additional
extraordinary fees to both Security National and Crary Huff, The probate court held three days of hearings on Security National’s fee
application. In a lengthy and well-reasoned decision, the probate court exercised
its discretion and reduced the fees to both Crary Huff and Security National
below the requested amounts. See Iowa Code § 633.197 (stating a personal
representative is “allowed such reasonable fees as may be determined by the
court for services rendered” (emphasis added)); In re Est. of Randeris v. Randeris,
523 N.W.2d 600, 607 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (reviewing probate court’s fee award
for an abuse of discretion). The probate court found “there was a significant and
unusual amount of work to be performed” by Security National in administering
Roger’s estate but held the claimed amount of time expended was nonetheless
“inflated or include[d] a large amount of unnecessary work.” The probate court
approved fees for ordinary services in the amount of $160,000.00 to Security
National (compared to its $394,782 request). The probate court approved fees for
ordinary services in the amount of $205,000 to Crary Huff (compared to its
$394,782 request). For extraordinary services, the probate court awarded Crary
Huff $110,568.23 in fees and costs (compared to its request for $137,791.98). In
total, the probate court reduced the fees to Security National and Crary Huff
nearly in half, from $927,355.98 to approximately $427,000. No party appealed
the order approving fees. The probate court later issued an award of additional
extraordinary fees to both Security National and Crary Huff, to which Todd did
not object.

Outcome: We hold that Todd’s claims against the personal representative of his
father’s estate arising out of and in the course of the administration of the estate
should have been brought before the probate court in the estate proceeding and
cannot now be pursued. The district court properly granted Security National’s
motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: