Iowa Family Settlement Agreement

…, complainant. Wills 61 — dissent — the family comparison contract is invalid… Agreement, since it was signed by only two of the four beneficiaries under the will. Family comparisons are not valid unless all persons obtained under the will are related to the agreement. G.S. 30-1… the case having been remanded in custody to the Assistant Officer of the High Court, in order to prove that the alleged agreement was a family comparator. After an audition… With respect to the legal issues raised, the applicants argue that the family transaction contract was valid and that it had authorized the withholding of the will of the estate fraudster and that a procedure for determining the descent was available instead of a full estate. Moreover, the bank`s application for the succession of the crook`s will is based on insufficient grounds, as it has not been shown that the family comparison contract constituted an illegal or inadmissible reserve of the will of the crook. In support of their assertions, they argue that family comparison agreements are the preferred of the law and that they may provide for a distribution either at will or against will, and that such agreements may waive the succession of the will and that the agreement of the executor mentioned in it is not necessary.

They cite and rely primarily on In re Estate of Swanson, 239 Iowa 294, 31 N.W.2d 385. They argue that there is a decisive difference between the removal of a will in violation of K.S.A. 59-618 by any person who possesses or has access to such will and has access to that will, which knowingly keeps him out of the estate, and a family comparison contract not to prohibit the will in which he was submitted to the estate court. , and there is no element of deception as to the existence of the will. Amtsgericht found that the terms of the family comparison contract were clear and unequivocal. Although the agreement gave the subsidiary the right to purchase the farm as part of a tempe catch-up agreement, it did not require it. The court found that the subsidiary had properly exercised its right to purchase under the agreement and that the fair market value of the property was $1.83 million (the average of the two valuations).

Posted in Uncategorized