## Facts

- Charles A. Dahlquist, an Illinois resident, died owning Iowa real estate; his will was probated in Illinois.
- The will created a trust for the Iowa land, naming the widow and certain children as trustees, with authority to manage, rent, sell, and reinvest for the children’s benefit.
- The widow, Emma F. Dahlquist, elected against the will and executed a separate trust agreement affecting interests in the Iowa land.
- Emma later died intestate without revoking her trust agreement; a deed connected to the trust arrangements was recorded in the Iowa county where the land was located.
- Viona Hausen, a child of the decedent and a beneficiary (and also a trustee under the arrangements), claimed an equitable interest in the Iowa land.
- Hausen filed an equity action in Iowa seeking partition, alleging division in kind would cause prejudice and requesting sale and division of proceeds.
- Co-beneficiaries/co-trustees moved to dismiss, arguing (i) the will had not been admitted to probate in Iowa when suit was filed and (ii) the trust remained active, barring partition.
- While an interlocutory appeal was pending from the denial of the motion to dismiss, the will was admitted to probate in Iowa.

## Issues

1. Whether a beneficiary with an equitable interest in land held in trust, including a beneficiary who is also a trustee, may maintain an action in equity for partition of the trust realty.
2. Whether the absence of Iowa probate of a will at the time suit is filed bars an Iowa partition action based on interests arising under that will, where the will was probated in another state and later admitted in Iowa.
3. Whether the trust’s status after the widow’s death was sufficiently passive (with purposes substantially fulfilled) to permit partition despite trustees holding legal title.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the order overruling the motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that a beneficiary (even if also a trustee) may seek partition of real property in which the beneficiary holds an equitable interest, notwithstanding that trustees hold legal title.
- The court held that lack of prior Iowa probate did not require dismissal; rights under the will accrued at death, and subsequent Iowa probate cured any procedural concern.
- The court treated the trust, in the circumstances presented, as effectively passive so equity could allow termination or disregard of nominal legal title for purposes of partition.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may permit beneficiaries to obtain partition of real property subject to a trust when the trust’s purposes have been fulfilled or no substantial trustee duties remain beyond holding title.
- A trust that is “dry” or “passive” does not bar beneficiaries from directly enforcing their equitable interests in the property, including through partition and, if appropriate, sale.
- Rights under a will arise at the testator’s death; local probate is generally a procedural mechanism for establishing the will’s effect, not an absolute jurisdictional bar to initiating an equitable action concerning in-state land.
- When later events (including subsequent local probate) remove procedural objections, dismissal is not required if the court otherwise has equity jurisdiction over the controversy.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the partition action to proceed because the plaintiff, as an equitable owner, could seek partition once the trust was effectively passive, and the initial absence of Iowa probate of the will did not mandate dismissal, particularly after the will was later admitted to probate in Iowa.


Hausen v. Dahlquist, 232 Iowa 100, 5 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1942)