Today the EPA issued new standards limiting mercury, acid gases, and other toxic pollutants from power plants. A fact sheet is available here. Essentially, the standards seek to eliminate 90% of mercury and air toxics from power plant emissions by year 2016. I will provide an update setting forth how the rule will be implemented.
A ruling issued today by the Iowa Court of Appeals brings to focus the necessity of clear and thorough language. If not, your attorneys will thank you for the additional fees that you bring to them. After all, attorneys need to eat, too.
As husband and wife, Paul and Minda had a will which provided for each other for their lives, then Minda's will provided that if she and Paul died at the same time or after her, her estate would pass to Paul's daughter Gail (Minda's step-daughter). Everything looks fine at first glance. But what if Paul predeceases Minda? What would happen then? Minda's heirs (her brothers here) claim that the gift to Paul/Gail lapses (fails) and thus passed intestate (without a will) to them.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the will demonstrated a clear intent to provide for Gail after Paul's passing. In addition, a court will typically rule in a way to avoid having property pass intestate, if possible. The perceived demonstration of intent plus avoidance of intestate permitted Gail to receive her step-mother's estate.
It certainly would have been easier if the author of the will had put in a couple of additional words (for example, "if he predeceases me") to avoid having to go through a trial and an appeal. So when you read our wills and think "man, these lawyers are wordy", there is a reason we are wordy.
Iowa Law Blog recently featured a post regarding the Iowa fence law found at Iowa Code Chapter 359A. That post discussed that although the fence law was historically enacted for agricultural purposes, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that its applicability extends to "serve the broader public good by mediating boundary, fence and trespass disputes." Gravert v. Nebergall, 539 N.W.2d 184, 188 (Iowa 1995). The fence law could be used for urban purposes as well.
The fence law directs that the township trustees of the subject area will serve as "fence viewers," a group that decides the outcome of a fence dispute between two neighbors. However, as unincorporated land is annexed by municipalities, that land is no longer part of the township, but instead part of the municipality. Thus, the township trustees no longer have jurisdiction over fence disputes.
Logically, under this scenario it would seem that the city council would become the "fence viewers" who would resolve the dispute between the neighbors. However, city councils traditionally serve a legislative function, and not a judicial one. Accordingly, it would seem that the Iowa District or small claims court would be the appropriate venue for these disputes.
Such result does not mesh with Iowa Code 359A or the Gravert decision of the Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa legislature should review 359A to ensure that it still serves it purpose, and that there is a clear mechism for citizens to utilize it.
Enter keywords:
