"We have in the past encouraged [familial] settlements, [citing cases] and continue to do so."
How later courts described this case
- "We have in the past encouraged [familial] settlements, [citing cases] and continue to do so."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*885 UHLENHOPP, Justice
(concurring specially).
I think paragraph seven of the will purports to create an estate in fee simple determinable with a provision that on the happening of the stated event the land passes to specified persons. Restatement of Property § 44 and Comment o (1936). See Reichard v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 231 Iowa 563, 568-74 , 1 N.W .2d 721, 728-29 (1942); Des Moines City Railway v. City of Des Moines, 183 Iowa 1261, 1267-71 , 159 N.W. 450 , 452-54 (1916), modified, 183 Iowa 1261 , 165 N.W. 398 (1918); R. Swenson, Possessory Estates and Future Interests in Iowa, 36 Iowa Code Ann. 73, 79-83 (1950). In addition I think the limitation is invalid under the circumstances of this case, as the trial court held; Carl and Algene were husband and wife at all times material to this case. Restatement of Property § 427 (1936).
Carl’s deed to defendants, growing out of the family settlement, was valid so far as his ownership of the land was concerned, but Algene did not execute the deed or otherwise release her dower. She is entitled to dower and I therefore concur in the result.
McCORMICK, J., concurs in this special concurrence.