PAUL UNDERWOOD and LINDA UNDERWOOD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DALE UNDERWOOD and STEPHEN UNDERWOOD, Defendants-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-856 / 07-0191
Filed December 28, 2007
PAUL UNDERWOOD and
LINDA UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
DALE UNDERWOOD and
STEPHEN UNDERWOOD,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Mitchell E. Turner,
Judge.
Paul Underwood appeals the district court’s ruling quieting title of a farm to
his son, Stephen Underwood. AFFIRMED.
Gregg Geerdes, Iowa City, for appellant.
Robert Anderson, Cedar Rapids, and John Fischer, Vinton, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
Paul Underwood appeals the district court’s ruling quieting title of a farm to
his son, Stephen Underwood. He claims Stephen was holding the property in
trust for him and that Iowa law does not prevent him from recovering it.
Alternatively, he claims he should be granted equitable relief. We affirm.
The parties in this case are family members. Appellants Paul and Linda
Underwood are the father and step-mother of appellee Stephen Underwood.
Appellee Dale Underwood is Stephen’s wife. This dispute involves the proper
ownership of a fifty-acre family farm in Benton County.
In 1988 Paul’s father, Ralph Underwood, passed away owning the
disputed property. As part of the estate proceedings Paul entered into a contract
with the executors of the estate to purchase the property. The parties dispute
who provided funding for the down payment.
The district court found that
Stephen obtained a loan using his motor vehicle as collateral to fund the down
payment.
Paul borrowed $20,000 from his sister to pay toward the purchase of the
property but was unable to obtain financing for the balance of the contract. He
therefore assigned the contract to Stephen, who then obtained financing from the
bank. The contract provided that payment in full was due on March 1, 1990. On
April 13, 1990, the executors deeded the property to Stephen. Paul claims he
and Stephen agreed that Paul was to be the owner of the farm and Stephen was
to facilitate Paul’s financing. Paul’s name, however, is not listed anywhere on the
deed, nor does it say Stephen is holding the property in trust for any other
person. The mortgage on the property was in Stephen’s name alone, as was the
3
subsequent mortgage when the property was refinanced in 1999. Paul knew of
the 1999 refinance and did not contest Stephen’s encumbrance of the property.
Paul either farmed or leased out the land to be farmed since the purchase
in 1989. Paul was listed as the landlord in any written leases of the land. Both
parties agree that the mortgage payments and other expenses of the property
were paid with income received from the farm itself.
Stephen claims that if
additional money was needed for property expenses, he provided it from his own
personal income. The record shows that purchases for improvements to the
property were made from Stephen’s personal checking account. The loan from
Paul’s sister was paid back in the form of earthmoving services primarily
provided by Paul.
Stephen, Dale, and their family moved into the farmhouse on the property
shortly after the purchase. The family resided there for approximately ten years,
until their relationship with Paul became unbearable in 1999. Since 2000 Paul
has lived on the farm. After Stephen’s attempt to evict Paul from the property in
2005, Paul filed this lawsuit.
Because it was tried in equity, we review this case de novo. Iowa Rule
App. P. 6.4. “To prove the existence of an oral contract, the terms must be
sufficiently definite for a court to determine with certainty the duties of each party,
the conditions relative to performance, and a reasonably certain basis for a
remedy.” Gallagher, Langlas, & Gallagher v. Burco, 587 N.W.2d 615, 617 (Iowa
1998) (emphasis added). No real doubt should exist as to the terms of said oral
contract. Davis v. Roberts, 563 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The district
court concluded the plaintiffs “have failed to prove by clear and convincing
4
evidence that they had an oral agreement with Stephen and his wife, Dale,
whereby the property would be held in trust for Paul.” We agree. The ruling of
the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
