Two Iowa siblings were removed as executors of their deceased mother’s estate after trying to purchase farmland they were supposed to be managing. The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the removal, concluding that their proposed transaction created conflict of interest concerns and that they failed to protect the estate’s financial interests. In an opinion filed on February 11, 2026, the court also upheld an order directing that the property be sold at public auction, giving the other beneficiaries an opportunity to compete for the land.
Iowa court removed two siblings as executors of farmland
The dispute started after the death of Gloria J. Pflughaupt, who passed away in October 2022. She left her estate to be split equally among her 4 children. The Iowa Court of Appeals said in its opinion in the Matter of the Estate of Gloria J. Pflughaupt that her oldest daughter, Cabrina Bell, and oldest son, James Pflughaupt Jr., were named executors in November 2022.They were responsible for managing the estate and protecting the interests of all 4 beneficiaries. However, disagreements developed over the future of their mother’s farmland, which became the central issue in the probate proceedings.The property in Linn County included approximately 104 acres of cropland, another 24 acres of land unsuitable for cultivation and a small homestead. It was the estate’s primary asset, making the decision about its sale particularly important to the financial interests of all four siblings.The court found that the older siblings’ proposed purchase, combined with their handling of the estate and their strained relationship with the other beneficiaries, justified their removal.
How much was the farmland worth and why did the brothers and sisters not agree
In January 2023, the estate obtained a broker’s price opinion, which valued the property at $1.2 million as of the date of their mother’s death. The broker, knowing the values in the locality, having inspected the farm and compared it with other sales of land, reached this conclusion. It was not a complete appraisal.In April 2023, the executors included this valuation in an estate inventory shared with the beneficiaries.Several months later, the younger siblings, Jordan Pflughaupt and Kimberlee Leopold, proposed buying the interests of their older siblings for $600,000, matching half of the estimated value of the entire farm. They also suggested selling the property at a public auction to allow potential buyers to compete.Cabrina and Jim rejected these proposals without further discussion. Cabrina later testified that they had received other offers that would have generated greater returns, although the court record did not establish the details of those offers.The disagreement deepened when Cabrina and Jim entered into contracts to purchase the property themselves, proposing to divide it into three parcels. One would go to Cabrina, another to Jim, and a third to a neighbouring landowner.
The proposed purchase raise concerns about self-dealing
The executors argued that their proposed transaction would bring approximately $1.26 million into the estate, exceeding the original $1.2 million estimate. They also relied on later valuations suggesting that the property could be worth around $1.23 million if marketed separately as cropland and a residential acreage.However, they had not obtained separate valuations for the three parcels they intended to sell. The broker testified that the land had different soil productivity ratings, which could affect the value of each section.Executors seeking to buy property from an estate they oversee must satisfy additional legal requirements because their personal interests might conflict with their duties, the Iowa Court of Appeals said.Such transactions require court approval, after notice to interested parties, under Iowa Code section 633.155. The court can reject a proposed sale if it would disadvantage the estate, and the executors must prove that the transaction serves the estate’s interests.Cabrina and Jim acknowledged that their proposal involved self-dealing but maintained that the price was beneficial to the estate. The appeals court, however, found that they had not established that their offer represented the best available deal.
What did the court say about the other beneficiaries’ offers
The appeals court placed particular emphasis on the executors’ failure to explore whether a better sale was possible.Jordan and Kimberlee remained interested in buying the property and were prepared to compete with their older siblings. Jordan testified that he had not been informed about the other offers Cabrina claimed to have received. He also learned about the proposed division of the farm only after the executors submitted their contracts for court approval.Cabrina acknowledged that she had not told her younger siblings that she and Jim intended to purchase the land themselves.The court noted that all 4 children appeared willing to pay more than the property’s estimated value. Yet the executors had not established who would offer the highest price because they had not properly explored the available options.The probate court decided that a public auction would be the best way to determine the property’s actual market value. The Iowa Court of Appeals agreed, finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting the proposed $1.26 million transaction.
Other estate management failures strengthened the case for removal
The court’s decision was not based solely on the proposed farmland purchase.The opinion stated the executors gave away hay bales that could have been sold, allowed themselves and others to use the farm without charge and tore down parts of the homestead without consulting Jordan and Kimberlee.The court found that these actions conflicted with the executors’ obligation to maximise the estate’s value for the beneficiaries.The siblings’ relationship also deteriorated during the proceedings. Their hostility was sufficiently pronounced when Cabrina and Jim did not invite their younger siblings to their mother’s memorial service. During the court hearing, the judge also had to interrupt proceedings to address the executors’ disruptive behaviour.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s decision to remove Cabrina and Jim as co-executors and appoint an attorney to succeed them. It also upheld the direction that the farmland be sold at public auction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
