Iowa Law Blog : Iowa Lawyer & Attorney : Sullivan & Ward Law Firm : Iowa Law Blog

Iowa adheres to the “at-will” employment doctrine, which simply states that an employee can be discharged for any lawful reason or no reason at all. A termination is wrongful when it violates public policy. In Berry v. Liberty Holdings, the Iowa Court of Appeals determined that Chapter 668 of the Iowa Code, which allows injured persons to bring a claim against the negligent individual, serves as the basis for a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

Berry was an employee for Liberty Holdings. The owner of Liberty Holdings also had an ownership interest in Premier Concrete Pumping. On his way home from work one day Berry was hit by a Premier Concrete Pumping truck and injured. Berry brought a personal injury suit against Premier to recover for his damages, which was settled. A few months later, Berry was terminated.

In the decision, the Court stated that “nothing could be more fundamental than the right of reasonable access to courts to protect those inalienable rights possessed by all persons and recognized by both the United States and Iowa Constitutions.” While the overall purpose of Chapter 668 is to establish a system for apportioning fault in negligence actions it also includes the state’s expressed policy that its citizens may seek legal redress for an injury caused by another’s negligence. If the Court chose not to expand the public policy exception to include Berry’s claim, it felt that employees may be forced into giving up certain well-recognized rights.

This is not the end of this case, however. Judge Vaitheswaran dissented stating that Chapter 668 does not define a right; therefore, cannot be the basis for the proposed public policy exception. Liberty Holdings may appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa. The Supreme Court of Iowa may agree with Judge Vaitheswaran.  

Further, while Berry has won this battle, he still must prove that he was terminated because he filed a claim against Premier before he can recover. This opinion contained no facts that would suggest one way or another whether Berry’s claim will be successful.  It will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Local probate Judge Ruth Klotz issued her ruling Thursday in the public and controversial case involving Robert Queener.  Mr. Queener becamed the center-piece of a dispute between Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) and Mr. Queener's niece.  The dispute focused on who should be appointed his guardian and conservator.  DHS had taken an active, and arguably aggressive, role in his custody and control of his assets with the appointment of their recommended parties for guardian and conservator.  Mr. Queener's niece, Cheri Jensen, also sought to be appointed as his guardian and conservator.

In Thursday's ruling, the court after hearings for the past several months, indicated a preference for appointment of family members as a guardian, provided they are not disqualified from serving in that capacity.

While DHS is required to and does protect elderly citizens of Iowa, it would appear based upon the learned ruling of Judge Klotz that proper consideration should be given to family members to serve if possible.  The strong-arm of government agencies may be viewed as intrusive in family matters.  Proper planning before a person reaches the point where they need help is beneficial to avoid such expensive legal battles. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You may recall the scene in the movie Legally Blonde where first-year law student Elle Woods joins Paulette, her cosmetologist friend, on a trip to Paulette's jerk of a former live-in boyfriend's home. At the trailer park, Elle saves the day spouting confusing (and humorously incorrect) legal jargon about common law marriage, cohabitation, and the "benefits of property law," ultimately resulting in Paulette's regained possession of her beloved bulldog. Elle and Paulette then speed away in a convertible with the former couple's property equitably divided. The viewer leaves the scene satisfied with a vague feeling that justice has been served. 

Although no reasonable person would look to a Reese Witherspoon movie for sound legal guidance, this easy-breezy application of common-law marriage mirrors general misconceptions about the doctrine. There seems to be a mistaken belief that by living together for an extended period of time a couple can unintentionally create a common-law marriage and thereby enjoy the benefits and legal protections of a marriage contract. This is simply not accurate.

Today, very few states even recognize common-law marriage. Although, Iowa is one of the few that still do, the burden on a party asserting the marriage in Iowa is very high. When a couple is married by common law, they are legally married for all purposes and may enjoy all the benefits of marriage including the equitable division of property in a divorce, the establishment of rehabilitative alimony, and inheritance rights upon the death of a spouse. Before these benefits can be asserted, the existence of a common-law marriage must be proven to the court. Because common-law marriages are not viewed as furthering a public purpose, claims of common-law marriage are viewed with suspicion and are carefully scrutinized by the courts. Therefore, a party asserting common-law marriage must prove the following three elements by clear, consistent and convincing evidence: (1) present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) general and substantial declaration that the parties are husband and wife.

The first element, "present intent and agreement to be married," basically means that a common-law married couple must have agreed to be married. This intent element is often the most difficult to establish. Present intent is not satisfied by an agreement to marry in the future. The intent must be to be married starting NOW. A mere agreement to be husband and wife without the present intention to assume the relationship does not constitute a marriage. This agreement does not need to be expressed in words and can be implied by a couple's conduct.  

Normally, a couple will begin living together after getting married, therefore continuous cohabitation is an element of common-law marriage. However, cohabitation is essentially just circumstantial evidence of intent and in no way can cohabitation alone establish a common-law marriage. A stable and significant live-in relationship with all the essential characteristics of an ideal marriage is not a common-law marriage without the existence of the actual intent to be married. Iowa does not require cohabitation to exist for a particular amount of time before it is considered "continuous."

Finally, there can be no "secret marriage." The couple must make a public declaration or hold out to the public that they are married in order to be considered common-law married. This element is considered the "acid test" of a common law marriage. Public declarations of marriage can be done in a variety of way and need not be entirely consistent. Some examples include use of the same last name, maintenance of joint bank accounts, using married labeled such as Mr. and Mrs., telling friends relatives, or acquaintances they are married, filing joint income tax returns, failing to correct people who refer to the couple as married. 

Common-law marriages are fairly rare and have the disadvantages of uncertainty and doubt until some sort of conflict makes the legal confirmation of the marriage necessary. However, the existence of the doctrine of common-law marriage guards the reasonable expectations of Iowans in certain stable and continuous relationships that deserve to be protected.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In sports news, its common to hear about coaches who leave one program for the next, often breaking their contract to do so.  This time, somebody is getting sued.  In Tennessee Football, Inc. v. Lane Kiffin, University of Southern California, the Tennessee Titans sued the new USC football coach for "inducement of breach of contract" and tortious interference with contractual relations claiming that Coach Kiffin and USC induced Tennessee Titans' running back coach Kennedy Pola to breach his contract with Tennessee by convincing him to coach at USC instead.

Clay Travis at AOL Fanhouse gives a great synopsis of the case and other details surrounding it.  Time will tell whether the outcome of this lawsuit will change how contracts are treated in collegiate and professional sports, but it will be a great spectator event over the next year or two.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Parents, grandparents and others wanting to benefit family members with special needs should act carefully in providing for lifetime gifts or testamentary gifts.

The main options when it comes to planning for gifts with special needs children in Iowa include:

1. Gift to Disabled child.  The problem with a gift is the impact it may have on eligibility for public assistance benefits.  It may even disqualify the child from getting those benefits until the funds from the gift are completely exhausted, at which time the child will need to reapply for benefits.
2. Disinherit the disabled child.  To avoid the issue of disqualification from public assistance, a simple route is to disinherit the special needs child altogether.  There is no legal requirement that one must provide for a child under their estate plan.
3. Distribute to a Another Person for Disabled Child's Benefit.  Another option is to distribute the funds to someone (a sibling for example) for that person to manage and distribute the funds for the benefit of the special needs child.  However, this can be risky as it the assets are exposed to the creditors of that person, ex-spouses, bankruptcy, and possibly gift taxes.
4. Special Needs Trust.  Distribution of the funds to a properly drafted supplemental needs trust can avoid all of issues addressed while providing for a little extra for the special needs child.  Extreme care is necessary in preparing such a trust.

No matter the plan, you should seek the advice of experienced counsel in making the arrangements for a special needs child.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...

In collegiate sports, Title IX essentially provides that men and women must have equivalent athletic opportunities.  Given the budget constraints of collegiate athletic departments, deference is usually given to revenue generating sports, such as football and basketball, and other sports have to be cut to weighing the two major factors:  1) Cost of the sport, and 2) Compliance with Title IX.  Quinnipiac University attempted to cut its women's volleyball program, arguing that its cheerleading program was a qualifying varsity sport under Title IX.  A US District Court Judge in Connecticut found that the school failed to provide equivalent athletic opportunities to male and female athletes, and further noted that:

"Competitive cheer may, sometime in the future, qualify as a sport under Title IX; today, however, the activity is still too underdeveloped and disorganized to be treated as offering genuine varsity athletic participation opportunities for students..."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Did you know that a new law passed in Iowa requires employers to give veterans Veterans' Day off in certain circumstances?

New Iowa Code section 91A.5A mandates that all employees who are veterans are entitled to a holiday on Veterans' Day, November 11.  The holiday may be paid or unpaid.  An employee who wishes to take this holiday must make his or her request known to the employer at least 30 days prior and provide a federal document that demonstrates his or her eligibility.  The employer is required to notify the employee at least 10 days in advance if the holiday will be paid or unpaid.

To my knowledge, this is the first holiday employers are required to give employees under Iowa law.  All other holidays given to employees are discretionary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is rumored that Elin Nordegren, Tiger Woods' estranged wife, will receive close to $100 million in their divorce settlement.  Other celebrity figures have also paid big bucks when their marriages have ended.  For example, Michael Jordan paid his ex-wife, Juanita, an impressive $168 million to end their marriage.  Their dissolution was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in Illinois.  Sir Paul McCartney paid Heather Mills an estimated $48.7 million dollars after only four years of marriage.   Their settlement was dictated by a court in Britain.  In Iowa, absent a premarital agreement to the contrary, the general goal of the court in divorce cases is to make the division of property approximately equal.  Taking this into consideration, could a "celebrity" property settlement happen in Iowa?  Definitely.  As such, if you or your spouse have substantial assets and you do not want the law to dictate who gets what if your marriage ends, you should consider a premarital agreement.  Chapter 595A of the Iowa Code controls premarital agreements in Iowa.  Premarital agreements may include provisions relating to: (a) property rights and obligations of the parties; (b) rights of disposing of, managing and controlling property; (c) disposition of property upon death or divorce; (d) the making of wills, trusts, or other arrangements to carry out the provisions of the agreement; (e) disposition of life insurance death benefits; (f) choice of law; and (g) any other matter not in violation of public policy or criminal statute.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent ruling from the Iowa Court of Appeals reinforced the difficult challenge to have a trustee of a trust removed.  With a contentious history between the beneficiaries and the trustee which included a fight over trustee and attorney fees, the Iowa Court of Appeals refused to remove the trustee as requested.  The Court initially indicated that the trustee fees were reasonable, even though the trustee did not provide an itemization of services provided.  With the court not finding excessive fees as approved by the district court, the conduct of the trustee did not rise to a level necessary to remove the trustee.

The moral of the story?  When you select a trustee as part of your estate plan, place some serious thought on who will fill that role as it can be difficult, if not impossible, to remove the trustee without cause.  It is also prudent to be sure to understand the bank's trustee fee schedule and to discuss the plan with the beneficiaries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks