Natvig v. Natvig

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1992
Filed October 30, 2024

DUANE NATVIG, GAYLE ZURFLUH, MARILYN WALLMAN, TINA VELTRI,
DIANE SKAALAND, ELLEN RINK, JESSE RANDALL, and LINDSAY WRIGHT,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

MICHAEL NATVIG, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Godfrey
Natvig,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Laura Parrish,

Judge.

Will contestants appeal the dismissal of their action. AFFIRMED.

Christopher F. O’Donohoe of Elwood, O’Donohoe, Braun & White, LLP,

New Hampton, for appellants.

Dennis G. Larson of Larson Law Office and Jeremy L. Thompson of

Putnam, Thompson & Casper L.L.P.C., Decorah, for appellee.

Heard by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024).
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

Children and grandchildren of Godfrey Natvig appeal the dismissal of their

action contesting Godfrey’s will.1 They challenge “gifts” Michael Natvig made to

himself while acting as Godfrey’s attorney in fact; request that an inter vivos

transfer of eighty acres of farmland to Michael be set aside due to the confidential

relationship between Godfrey and Michael, claiming the deed was executed under

fraud, duress, and undue influence; and argue the 2016 codicil to Godfrey’s will

“was procured by undue influence” and during a time Godfrey “was suffering from

an insane delusion.” Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Godfrey and his wife, Theodora, had eight children: Duane, Gayle, Marilyn,

Tina, Diane, Mary, Ellen, and Michael. Theodora died in 2002. In 2004, Godfrey

executed a last will and testament, generally providing that his eight children would

be equal beneficiaries to his estate, but granting Michael an option to purchase the

remaining eighty acres of the Natvig family farm.2 That provision, article III,

provided:

I hereby give, devise and bequeath my farm real estate legally
described as:
The S 1/2 SW 1/4 of Section 8, Township 97 North,
Range 11, West of the 5th P.M., Howard County, Iowa,
5 P.M., Howard County, Iowa, •
th

to my children, Diane Skaaland, Duane Natvig, Mary Randall, Gayle
Zurfluh, Marilyn Waltman, Tina Veltri, Ellen Rink and Michael Natvig,
in equal shares and absolutely, provided that in the event that my

1 We refer to the plaintiffs collectively as “the siblings.”
2 In 1994, Godfrey and Theodora transferred an initial forty acres of farmland to

Michael. After Theodora’s death in 2002, Godfrey transferred another forty acres
to Michael, while reserving a life estate for himself. The deeds referred to the
transfers as “gift[s].” The siblings do not dispute the fact that Michael lived on the
family farm and farmed with Godfrey for many years, up until Godfrey’s death.
3

said children desire to sell the farm, that they shall give the first right
and option to my son, Michael Natvig to purchase the same at the
then appraised value of the property, for a period of 60 days after
receiving notice that the farm is for sale. If my son, Michael Natvig,
does not exercise the option during that period, it shall lapse and the
farm may be sold then to any party at a price agreeable to all parties.

Godfrey’s will further bequeathed “all of my farm machinery and equipment to my

son, Michael Natvig, to be his absolutely.”

In 2015, Godfrey executed a power of attorney designating Michael and

Ellen as his agents. Tensions between Godfrey and the siblings developed as

Ellen became privy to Godfrey’s finances, which prompted the siblings to question

Godfrey’s estate-planning decisions. In early 2016, Godfrey transferred the

remaining eighty acres to Michael via warranty deed. On May 20, 2016, Godfrey

executed a first codicil to his last will and testament, amending article III as follows:

I hereby amend Article III to replace the prior Article III and
read as follows:
It is my desire to keep the real estate in the family and not to
be sold. My son Michael Natvig, shares my wishes. All real estate
previously owned by me and my deceased wife have been conveyed
to our son, Michael; the last 80-acre tract was recently conveyed to
Michael in consideration of services he has rendered to me and my
deceased wife, is currently rendering to me, and services to be
rendered to me in the future, all of which approximate the market
value of the 80 acres. As such, the prior conveyances remove my
other children from receiving any real estate, and it is my intent that
all real estate go to my son, Michael Natvig, and not my other
children. In the event there is any question about any transfers of
real estate made to Michael, or there are additional parcels of real
estate in my name that have not been conveyed to Michael, I do here
by give, devise and bequeath all real estate to my son, Michael
Natvig.

The following month, Godfrey revoked Ellen’s status as his co-agent as attorney

in fact.
4

In early 2017, the siblings filed a petition in equity against Michael,

requesting Michael’s removal as Godfrey’s attorney in fact and alleging Michael

breached his fiduciary duties to Godfrey and the siblings.3 Godfrey intervened and

filed a motion to dismiss. Following a two-day hearing, at which Godfrey appeared

in person and testified, the district court entered an order granting Godfrey’s

motion. The court found “Godfrey, in fact, has the capacity to revoke Michael

Natvig’s power of attorney, should he choose to do so.” The court further found

because no fiduciary relationship existed between Michael and the siblings, the

siblings lacked standing to bring their breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against

Michael. Accordingly, the court dismissed the siblings’ petition.

Godfrey died in 2018. Michael was appointed the executor of his estate. 4

Godfrey’s estate included an inheritance from his aunt Gertrude in 2013, of which

a portion had been distributed to the Natvig children in equal shares of $13,000.

Most of the remaining funds were spent prior to Godfrey’s death. The siblings

believed the Natvig family farm, which had been transferred to Michael over the

years, should also be included in Godfrey’s estate.

In 2019, the siblings filed the instant action against Michael.5 The siblings

alleged the terms of Godfrey’s will (specifically, the 2016 codicil) were “fraudulently

procured by [Michael]” “through the use of undue influence and duress” and “at a

time when [Godfrey] was suffering from an insane delusion” and that Michael

3 The district court in this case took judicial notice of that action, EQCV017074.
4 Ellen was appointed co-executor, but her resignation to act as executor was

accepted by the court.
5 Mary predeceased Godfrey but was survived by her children, Jesse and Lindsay,

who were later added as plaintiffs in the action.
5

obtained the warranty deed conveying eighty acres when he “was acting as

[Godfrey’s] attorney-in-fact.” The siblings further requested “an accounting” for all

farm rental income received and “all money inherited by Godfrey” from Gertrude

while Michael was acting as his attorney-in-fact. Michael filed an answer denying

the claims and raising affirmative defenses based on the prior litigation in 2017.

Trial took place over three days. The court heard testimony from Michael;

siblings Diane, Gayle, Tina, Marilyn, Ellen, and Duane; attorney Erik Fern; bank

teller/notary Rosemary Phillips; family physician Dr. Paul Jensen; tax preparer

Malvera Wohlsdorf; friend/neighbor Sara Knutson; friend Thomas Frantzen; and

caretaker Brenda Anding. The transcript of Godfrey’s testimony from the motion

to dismiss was also admitted. Preliminarily, the court determined Michael’s

affirmative defenses “must fail,” because “[w]hile the issues substantially overlap,

there are differences in the parties and the claims are somewhat different.” The

court proceeded to the merits of the siblings’ claims, rejected them in their entirety,

and dismissed the siblings’ petition.

The siblings appeal. Additional facts will be set forth below as relevant to

the issues raised on appeal.

II. Standard of Review

“Actions to set aside or contest wills, for the involuntary appointment of

guardians and conservators, and for the establishment of contested claims shall

be triable in probate as law actions, and all other matters triable in probate shall

be tried by the probate court as a proceeding in equity.” Iowa Code § 633.33

(2019). We review the claims presented de novo. In re Est. of Kline, No. 18-1658,

2019 WL 6358421, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2019). “In equity cases, especially
6

considering the credibility of witnesses, we give weight to the fact-findings of the

district court but are not bound by them.” Geerdes by Jenkins v. Cruz, 7 N.W.3d

22, 28 (Iowa 2024).

III. Accounting of Checks and Cash Received by Michael

Godfrey executed a power of attorney designating Michael and Ellen as his

agents on May 20, 2015.6 It specified the agents were “not entitled to

compensation” or authorized to “[m]ake gifts, either direct or indirect.” However,

the agents were authorized to “[e]xercise fiduciary powers that the principal has

authority to delegate.” Godfrey also authorized the agents “general authority” to

act with respect to the following: “Real Property; Tangible Personal Property;

Stocks and Bonds; Commodities and Options; Banks and Other Financial

Institutions; Operation of Entity or Business; Insurance and Annuities; Estates,

Trusts, and Other Beneficial Interests; Claims and Litigation; Personal and Family

Maintenance; Benefits from Governmental Programs or Civil or Military Service;

Retirement Plans; Taxes.”

On appeal, the siblings challenge Michael’s failure to explain “the

disbursement of monies by him for checks written directly to him or cash received

by him” while he was serving as Godfrey’s attorney in fact. They claim Michael

was “prohibited . . . from making gifts to himself.” Specifically, they challenge

“expenses paid from each individual check” totaling $112,200 and “deductions for

farm expenses” in 2016 and 2017 totaling $27,974.

6 Ellen served as co-agent until June 29, 2016, when Godfrey’s attorney notified

Ellen that her “status as agent is revoked.” We observe that many of the
challenged disbursements took place during the time Ellen served as Michael’s
co-agent, which we believe inherently weakens the siblings’ claim.
7

“The established rule is that a power of attorney must be strictly construed

and the instrument will be held to grant only those powers which are specified.” In

re Est. of Crabtree, 550 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted); accord

Abodeely v. Cavras, 221 N.W.2d 494, 501–02 (Iowa 1974) (construing power of

attorney as granting only powers specified therein). Indeed, because the power-

of-attorney form executed by Godfrey did not grant Michael the power to make a

gift, he did not have that power. See Crabtree, 550 N.W.2d at 170.

To support their claim, the siblings presented exhibits 5 and 6, which listed

checks for “cash” issued from Godfrey’s accounts at Bank of the West and Citizens

Savings Bank between 2016 and 2018, totaling $97,200.7 Michael testified that

because Godfrey “was the owner of the accounts,” “[h]e looked at the statements

too and had access to them to—to review them whenever he felt like it, and then

as well as I and Ellen did, that we had—we all three had access to those.” Michael

explained, “[I]f my father needed me to perform duties under co-power of attorney,

then he would ask me to do what he needed done, whether it was to transfer

money at a bank or to acquire cash that he needed to pay his caregiver, that type

of stuff.” Relating to checks made out in Michael’s name, Michael testified they

7 It is unclear what evidence was presented to substantiate the additional $15,000

payments challenged by the siblings. The record includes checking account
statements listing a variety of payments for “insurance” and “health plan,” and other
checks addressed to a variety of sources, including “Fencl Oil Co,” “Culligan,”
“J&A,” “Saude Cemetery Fund,” and “Howard County Mutual.” In short, their
argument does not contain the appropriate “references to the pertinent parts of the
record.” See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3). It is not this court’s job to comb
through bank statements or photographs of checks in search of alleged
“unaccounted for” transactions. See, e.g., LeConte v. John Deere Dubuque Works
of John Deere & Co., No. 23-0278, 2024 WL 260825, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24,
2024).
8

were “used to pay bills for the farm that dad and I had had for different things,

whether it was for rent or farm inputs.” Michael stated the funds were also used

for Godfrey’s “personal expenses,” including caretaking expenses, medical

expenses, or general household bills. Specifically, Godfrey hired Brenda Anding

through an agency to serve as an extra caregiver, and after seven or eight months,

Godfrey decided he “wanted to hire her directly rather than through the agency.”

Michael stated:

The checks that were written for cash, the majority of that went to
pay Brenda Anding for the home health care that she provided; and
then some of it was used for church offerings and church donations
and whatever other donations my dad wanted to—to give to any
organization. And then, of course, if we were in town, he enjoyed
going through the A & W drive-through for a root beer float. So
there’s—there’s things like that that he would use cash for.

Anding testified, describing her service as Godfrey’s caretaker along with Michael,

as well as being Godfrey’s home healthcare provider during his final years. Anding

agreed Godfrey paid her in cash.

Relating to their claim for “farm expenses,” the siblings presented exhibit G,

which included IRS forms 4835 itemizing deductions for “Farm Rental Income and

Expenses.” The forms listed “gross farm rental income” of $9519 in 2016 and

$6764 in 2017, and “total expenses” of $18,552 in 2016 and $9422 in 2017. 8

Michael testified Godfrey kept track of his own income and expenses for taxes:

“He had his own box, it was a simple box, to put all receipts; and at the end of the

year, he would just document it on a legal pad or a spiral notebook, whatever he

8 Michael testified the farming expenses changed “somewhat based on the amount

of care that I had to give my father kept increasing over those years as he aged”;
“I had to cut back on farming operations that dad—dad and I had originally started
years ago to devote more time to the care of my father.”
9

had, and fill that out for his tax preparer.” Malvera Wohlsdorf had prepared

Godfrey’s taxes since 2011. She testified Godfrey always brought his own notes

in to the appointment, and Michael’s handwriting was not on Godfrey’s notes.

Wohlsdorf recalled, “Godfrey was confident always, you know, that those were the

figures.”

According to the siblings, Michael “has failed to offer any explanation for the

benefit to Godfrey” for the amounts of “total expenses.” This claim is unpersuasive.

The siblings had access to the tax forms and information they now challenge. For

example, Duane acknowledged, “Yes, I—I had access to the various bank

accounts, records.” Duane further agreed he had reviewed “all of the tax returns

from 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.” Duane went on to describe specific expenses

on the forms.9

On this issue, the district court found:

Plaintiffs have been provided access to Godfrey’s bank
records, and income tax returns by Michael. While they argue they
are entitled to more specific information, especially regarding checks
Michael wrote to himself for cash, Michael provided sufficient
additional testimony to explain the use of cash for Godfrey’s benefit
or at Godfrey’s direction. Further, [the court] found [in EQCV017074]
that Godfrey was aware of the general nature of withdrawals from his
account and the testimony of his tax preparer would support the
same conclusion. The Court cannot find that a requirement for
further accounting is supported by the law or the facts of this matter.

We concur with court’s determination, and we affirm on this issue.

9 We note the forms included expenses for “Gasoline, fuel, and oil”; “Insurance

(other than health)”; “Other (land, animals, etc.)”; “Utilities”; “Professional fees”;
and “Depreciation and section 179 expense deduction not claimed elsewhere.”
10

IV. Confidential Relationship

The siblings challenge the court’s ruling denying their request to set aside

an inter vivos transfer of eighty acres from Godfrey to Michael. Their challenge

arises from the confidential relationship between Godfrey and Michael, claiming

the transfer was procured under fraud, duress, and undue influence.10

Generally,

[t]o set aside a transfer on the ground of undue influence, one must
show “such persuasion as results in overpowering the will of the
[grantor] or prevents him from acting intelligently, understandingly,
and voluntarily—such influence as destroys the free agency of the
grantor and substitutes the will of another person for his own.”

Mendenhall v. Judy, 671 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Iowa 2003) (second alteration in

original) (quoting Leonard v. Leonard, 12 N.W.2d 899, 903 (Iowa 1944)). However,

“[a] transfer to a grantee standing in a confidential or a fiduciary relationship to the

grantor is presumptively fraudulent and therefore presumptively the product of

undue influence.” Id.

If the siblings establish a confidential relationship existed, “the burden of

proof shifts to the grantee to negate a presumption of undue influence by clear,

convincing, and satisfactory evidence.” Id. at 454–55. Michael does not dispute

the existence of a confidential relationship.11 Rather, he claims the evidence

10 The siblings raise this claim in Issues II and III. We address it collectively.
11 The siblings maintain the court “failed to appreciate the analytical significance of

the confidential and fiduciary relationships that existed between Michael Natvig
and Godfrey.” For purposes of our review of the issue presented in this case, we
see no difference in the distinction. “A confidential relationship ‘embraces those
multiform positions in life wherein one comes to rely on and trust another in his
important affairs.’” Geerdes, 7 N.W.3d at 28 (quoting Mendenhall, 671 N.W.2d at
455). In short, the court found no evidence Michael used a dominant influence on
Godfrey to effectuate the transfer.
11

supports the district court’s finding that he met his burden to prove he acted in

good faith and Godfrey’s acts “met or exceeded the requirements of being freely,

intelligently, and voluntarily given.” Accord Jackson v. Schrader, 676 N.W.2d 599,

605 (Iowa 2003); see Kline, 2019 WL 6358421, at *3.

At the outset, it is clear from the record that maintaining the Natvig family

century farm was Godfrey’s primary concern. Godfrey took great pride in

establishing a certified organic farm, which received prestigious awards over the

years. Michael testified he lived at the farm nearly his whole life, and the farming

relationship he had with Godfrey was “best described as a joint venture.” Michael

acknowledged there were “elements of organic farming that were more important”

to them than money, explaining:

The way my father and I looked at it, it was really a—a way to
help preserve the farm, the sustainability of the soil, and the
regeneration of the soil from the condition that it had been from using
conventional pesticides and fertilizers.
And we saw the improvement in the soil health during those
years and realized that it was the right thing to do, and it—it just kind
of fit right into what my dad had really been farming because he had
also been a soil and water commissioner for Howard County for a
number of years and had recognition earlier on for building the first
terraces on 80 acres of our farm which was—I think it was 1970 or
‘69, something like that. So he was always very conservation
oriented.

During Godfrey’s final years, as he required more care, Godfrey was not

physically involved in the farming venture. But Anding, who provided daily care

and medical assistance for Godfrey until his death, testified Godfrey sat on the

front porch and “if Mike was close, he’d watch Mike on the tractor or the skid loader

taking bales of hay to the cows and the horses.” Even in his final days, Godfrey

remained engaged to the extent he could, asking Michael “how’s the cows” and
12

reminding him he had not mowed yet when he said he was going to. Michael took

over as caregiver for Godfrey in the evenings and on the weekends. Godfrey

testified that staying in his home was “important” to him, stating, “Absolutely. Born

in that house, and I’m going to stay there till I die.” Godfrey did not believe he

could stay in his home without Michael’s help.12

The siblings argue “[t]here is no evidence that Godfrey was informed . . .

that any one of [them] had the intention of selling the 80-acre farm property to any

person besides Michael.” But they acknowledge Godfrey “wanted the farm to stay

together” and “that the best course of action to ensure this was to deed the property

to Michael.” Anding stated Godfrey became “stressed” and “upset” in 2015, when

the siblings began questioning his estate planning. Michael stated the siblings

called Godfrey “quite regularly wanting to know more about any changes that he

had done with regard to his will or real estate, and it bothered my father a lot.”

In January 2016, Godfrey expressed to his physician, Dr. Jensen, that he

had some “legal issues that needed to be addressed” and he wanted approval of

his competence to do so. Dr. Jensen conducted a “mini mental status”

examination on Godfrey, of which Godfrey scored a 21 out of 30. Dr. Jensen

explained a couple of things Godfrey missed on the examination involved “recall,”

but he opined “there were not undue concerns . . . from [Godfrey’s] cognitive

standpoint.” Dr. Jensen then dictated a letter, dated January 6, 2016, opining, “[I]t

is reasonable for [Godfrey] to be able to deal with his legal affairs and I think he is

12 Godfrey’s testimony from the motion-to-dismiss hearing in the instant
proceeding was admitted as an exhibit to the district court below. This testimony
was given when Godfrey was ninety-seven years of age.
13

capable of understanding the ramifications of decisions and changes that may

need to be made.”

In early April, Godfrey executed a warranty deed transferring the remaining

eighty acres to Michael.13 Shortly thereafter, Godfrey met with his attorney, Erik

Fern, to prepare a codicil to his will to memorialize the transfer.14 Fern first

explained to Godfrey that the codicil was not necessary because he “had already

transferred the real estate” so “it wouldn’t even be part of [his] estate.” Godfrey

responded “that he suspected that his other children were not going to like—like

what he wanted to do with his estate and he just wanted to make sure that his

wishes to have the farm and the land with Michael be effectuated.” Fern then

discussed Godfrey’s “motivations” about “why he wanted to . . . give it to Michael”:

[O]ne was that Michael had been his caregiver and he wanted to
appropriately compensate Michael for being his caregiver. Two was
they had farmed together and he wanted to make sure that the
farm—that the farm stayed in the family; and then, third, he—he
wasn’t necessarily sure that the other children shared his same
interest in keeping the farm in the family. Those—It was those kind
of three—three reasons he gave.

In his experience, Fern found Godfrey’s decision “to be reasonable,” “[e]specially,

you know, knowing kind of the farming culture a little bit,” reflecting that one of his

13 Again, we note Ellen was still acting as Godfrey’s co-agent at that time.Godfrey
explained his decision to remove Ellen as his co-agent, stating, “Ellen was a power
of attorney at one time; and she went into my bank statements and told
everybody—the rest of the family what’s going on and that—that’s not right.”
Godfrey believed the purpose of the power of attorney was to “keep quiet about
my balance and bills” and “take[] care of my balance for me, write[] checks on
everything you need to pay.” In contrast, Godfrey explained Michael was “doing a
good job of taking—of POA, [so he] wanted to keep him on.”
14 Fern testified he met with Godfrey alone and he did not perceive any influence

by Michael on Godfrey.
14

family members “left his farm to his kids that farmed and not the other kids; . . . . I

mean, it did not seem out of the ordinary.”

On this issue, the district court found, in relevant part:

Although he had power of attorney at the time Godfrey deeded the
farm land to him in 2016, there is no proof that Michael used his
fiduciary power to effectuate the transfer. Again, Godfrey had
independent legal advice, he was deemed competent by his doctor
and he determined of his own volitation [sic] to transfer the remaining
portion of the farm to Michael at that time. Ample independent,
reasonable explanation of his decision is found in the testimony of
Attorney Fern as well as Thomas Frantzen.[15]
.... Michael’s own testimony appeared credible and
informed, but the existence of independent professional advice and
the medical evaluations in 2016 and 2017 firmly demonstrated to this
court that Godfrey’s decisions were his, and his alone.

Upon our review, we affirm the court’s decision that Michael rebutted the

presumption of undue influence by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.

See Cich v. McLeish, No. 18-0069, 2019 WL 1056804, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar.

6, 2019). Testimony from each neutral witness supported the finding that Michael

acted in good faith at the time of the transaction and Godfrey acted freely,

intelligently, and voluntarily. In addition, the record indicates Godfrey had the

benefit of proper independent advice before the transfer. See Mendenhall, 671

N.W.2d at 462 (“Proper independent advice in these circumstances means

‘showing that the donor had the benefit of conferring fully and privately upon the

subject of his intended gift with a person who was not only competent to inform

15 Frantzen, a longtime friend of Godfrey’s, was also an organic farmer. Frantzen
testified he and Godfrey shared common interests in “land preservation, heritage,
ethnic heritage, and whole issues involving agriculture.” Frantzen stated “[i]t was
extremely important” to Godfrey that the “farm [be] kept together.” He also recalled
a specific conversation in which Godfrey shared “how it was Norwegian culture . . .
that the father would bequeath land to the youngest son in return for his—return
for that person’s care when he grew elderly.”
15

him correctly as to its legal effect, but who was furthermore so disassociated from

the interests of the donee as to be in a position to advise with the donor impartially

and confidently as to the consequences to himself of his proposed benefaction.’”

(citation omitted)).

We also observe Godfrey’s previous testimony admitted as part of this

record strongly indicates he acted freely, intelligently, and voluntarily in connection

with the transfer of the final eighty acres. For example, Godfrey described the

2017 lawsuit as being “all about money,” “[t]hey want more money.” He

acknowledged he didn’t “have any money left,” but stated “they want that land back

too, . . . 80 acres on the north side of the road.” Specifically, Godfrey testified Ellen

told him they wanted the land back “[s]o they can sell it.” Anding recalled Godfrey

ended one particularly upsetting phone call by hanging up; “[h]e had enough, he

wasn’t going to listen anymore, that he had made up his mind and this was the

way it was going to be.” We affirm on this issue.

V. Undue Influence and Insane Delusion

The siblings further claim the codicil to Godfrey’s will should be set aside

because “[i]t was procured by undue influence.”

Four elements are necessary to establish undue influence: (1) The
[grantor] must be susceptible to undue influence, (2) opportunity [on
the part of the grantee] to exercise such influence and effect the
wrongful purpose must exist, (3) a disposition [on the part of the
grantee] to influence unduly for the purpose of procuring an improper
favor must be present, and (4) the result must clearly appear to be
the effect of undue influence.

Id. at 454 (alterations in original) (citation omitted). “Weakened mental condition

of the grantor” is a factor that “bear[s] on the question of undue influence.”

Geerdes, 7 N.W.3d at 28.
16

The siblings do not take issue with Godfrey’s mental capacity. Instead, they

argue Godfrey was completely dependent on Michael, which enabled Michael “to

shape and restrict the nature and amount of information being provided to

[Godfrey, who was an] otherwise competent grantor.” According to the siblings,

“No changes were ever made to [Godfrey’s] will until Michael began to live with his

father, oversee all of his caretaking, serve as Godfrey’s attorney-in-fact, and isolate

his father from his siblings.”

In a similar vein, the siblings claim at the time Godfrey executed the codicil

in 2016, he was “suffering from an insane delusion,” namely, a belief that the

siblings “intended to sell the 80 acres when [he] died.”16 “[A]n insane delusion is

‘a belief which has no basis in reason and which cannot be dispelled by argument.’”

In re Est. of Dolezal, No. 20-0988, 2021 WL 1904687, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. May 12,

2021) (quoting Hult v. Home Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 240 N.W. 218, 221 (Iowa 1932)).

“Insane delusions show a diseased condition of mind, and will render invalid a will

which is the direct result of such delusions.” In re Est. of Koll, 206 N.W. 40, 43

(Iowa 1925).

This concept often arises when a party contesting a will alleges the
testator wrongly believes that those who would naturally be the
objects of his bounty are hostile to him. But the fact that the testator

16 The siblings also allege Michael persuaded Godfrey to believe they were suing

him in the 2017 lawsuit, which led Godfrey to “retain a lawyer who then represented
him as intervenor.” In that case, however, the court found:
[S]everal disinterested persons acquainted with Godfrey testified. All
indicated Godfrey [is] capable of managing his personal affairs. No
one expressed a concern Godfrey deferred to his son Michael
Natvig. The credible evidence in the record indicates Godfrey is
oriented to past events, as well as the present. He accurately
discusses current events, as well as historical events that occurred
in his past. He has given directions to both Michael and his home
health care provider.
17

believes that his relatives have ill-treated him, or that they are
inimical to him and for that reason leaves his property to strangers,
does not constitute an insane delusion, unless it appears that his
belief was wholly without any basis whatever, and that the testator
obstinately persisted in it against all arguments which may have been
employed to dissuade him.

Dolezal, 2021 WL 1904687, at *5 (cleaned up).

According to the siblings, Michael “attempted to support the insane

delusions which he produced in Godfrey by testifying to repetitive phone calls and

letters” and Anding “seconded Michael’s effort to support his suggestion that

Godfrey was routinely upset by angry telephone calls from his children.” These

points do not support their contention, however, because the focus of the claim is

Godfrey’s state of mind at the time he executed the codicil. See id. (noting the lack

of proof to support a claim the testator “suffered from an insane delusion when he

executed the 2016 will”); In re Est. of Hetrick, No. 11-1702, 2012 WL 3860749, at

*3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2012) (“Evidence of mental capacity must refer to the

exact time of the making of the will.”).

Rejecting the siblings’ claim, the district court found:

Plaintiff’s claim of undue influence fails on the first prong of
the test. There is no question that Godfrey was elderly and
somewhat physically frail at the time he executed the codicil to his
will in 2016, but each and every one of the neutral witnesses in this
matter testified that he was of sound mind and in control of his own
decisions at this time. While Godfrey relied on Michael for a great
deal of assistance, he maintained responsibility for much of his own
banking, he maintained separate records for preparation of his
income taxes, he underwent cognitive testing and was deemed
competent by his doctor, he sought out and received independent
legal advice from an attorney who also found him competent and he
clearly and consistently shared his opinions about his decisions
regarding his estate with others. A lopsided or unexpected
disposition of one’s estate does not automatically translate to a
finding of improper influence or wrongdoing by the beneficiary. The
credible evidence before the Court does not support a finding that
18

the codicil to Godfrey’s will was fraudulently procured through the
use of undue influence or duress by Michael.
Likewise, this [court] cannot reasonably conclude that
Godfrey was suffering from an insane delusion at the time he
executed the codicil. Plaintiffs argue that because Godfrey believed
his children were suing him over his power of attorney, when he was
not actually a named defendant, they have established an insane
delusion. Proof of a mere mistake is not of itself proof of an insane
delusion. Attorney Fern testified that Godfrey viewed the lawsuit filed
by his children as an attack on what he had done. Godfrey didn’t
want to see Michael removed or his decision undone. It is not a large
leap to understand why Godfrey may have stated he was being sued
by his children if this was his perspective of the lawsuit. This Court
does not find his characterization to be so unusual or unexplainable
in reality that it should be considered a delusion, let alone an insane
delusion.

Upon our review, we concur with the court’s decision. Godfrey consistently

expressed his desire to preserve the Natvig family farm by transferring the final

eighty acres to Michael and his reasons for doing so. See In re Est. of Khabbaz,

No. 23-0495, 2024 WL 3684812, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024) (“Second-

guessing should not be permitted to void a will that complies with established

guarantees of trustworthiness.”). For example, when Fern pointed out there was

no need for the codicil because the property was no longer part of his estate,

Godfrey responded “he just wanted to make sure that his wishes to have the farm

and the land with Michael be effectuated.”17 When Godfrey visited Dr. Jensen

shortly after the codicil was executed, he expressed frustration about the siblings’

disagreement with the changes he made. He asked Dr. Jensen to prepare another

17 The siblings emphasize the fact that a different attorney prepared the deed.

However, when asked if that fact “raise[d] any concern or a red flag” to him, Fern
responded, “Not really, just because I was—I guess I was familiar with her at least
being active in the—in the community.” Moreover, we note Fern’s diligence in
gathering additional information and assurances from other individuals prior to
preparing the codicil for Godfrey to alleviate any questions he had relating to
Godfrey’s deviation from his will.
19

letter on his behalf, which Dr. Jensen felt “seemed like a reasonable request to just

let the family know this was bothering him and then they could take that as they

would.” Dr. Jensen’s letter, dated June 22, 2016, stated in part, “I would

respectfully request that family members be aware of the negative effects of these

stressful conversations and questions.” Godfrey also wrote a letter to the siblings

stating, “My wishes as I stated have not changed.” He requested them to “honor

and respect [his] wishes” and the decision he had made—“on [his] own accord”—

to “change the will.” He further explained, “Mike and I have worked side-by-side.

He understands my vision of the land. As the years progressed I passed on to him

the responsibilities to maintain that vision. I believe that he has consistently done

this . . . .”

In reviewing the siblings’ claim, “[w]e presume freedom from undue

influence.” Dolezal, 2021 WL 1904687, at *6. “Mere suspicion, surmise,

conjecture, or speculation is not enough to warrant a finding of undue influence,

but there must be a solid foundation of established facts upon which to rest an

inference of its existence.” In re Will of Pritchard, 443 N.W.2d 95, 98 (Iowa Ct.

App. 1989). Here, the siblings’ “bare suspicions will not suffice to support the claim

of undue influence. They offer no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that [Godfrey]

was susceptible to influence nor evidence that [Michael] was disposed to influence

[Godfrey] to procure sole beneficiary status.” In re Est. of Henrich, 389 N.W.2d 78,

83 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986). The transfer of the final eighty acres “was part of a

pattern” of prior transfers of farmland to Michael. See Geerdes, 7 N.W.3d at 30

(“The gift was part of a pattern of previous gifts to Albert. We cannot say that the

result ‘clearly appear[s] to be the effect of undue influence.’” (quoting Mendenhall,
20

671 N.W.2d at 454)). Although the siblings rely on Michael’s proximity and close

relationship to Godfrey to establish Michael had the opportunity to exercise undue

influence on Godfrey, “opportunity alone is insufficient to support an inference of

undue influence.” See Henrich, 389 N.W.2d at 83.

Having addressed the issues raised on appeal, we affirm the district court’s

order dismissing the siblings’ petition.

AFFIRMED.