Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 597.2 (2026)

Interest of spouse in other’s property

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When property is owned by the husband or wife, the other has no interest therein which can be the subject of contract between them, nor such interest as will make the same liable for the contracts or liabilities of the one not the owner of the property, except as provided in this chapter. [C73, §2203; C97, §3154; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10447; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §597.2]

\n
Notes of Decisions
Velma J. Hussemann, by Her Next Friend & Attorney-In-Fact Marcella D. Ritter v. Herbert J. Hussemann Jr. & Robert J. Hussemann, as Trs. of the Herbert J. Hussemann Inter Vivos Trust Agreement, Dated June 3, 1991, 847 N.W.2d 219 (Iowa 2014). · cites it 6× “Iowa Code § 597.2 . We have previously indicated that section is to be “narrowly interpreted .”
Schwennen v. Abell, 430 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 1988). · cites it 4× “Gottschalk, 21 Iowa 512, 513-14 (1866); see also Iowa Code § 597.2 , .19 (1983). In promulgating Iowa Uniform Jury Instruction 3.”
Matter of Est. of Wulf, 471 N.W.2d 850 (Iowa 1991). · cites it 4× “Lucille also asserts that Iowa Code section 597.2 prevents the interest she is *853 claiming from being reduced to writing.”
Bowman v. Bennett, 250 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa 1977). · cites it 2× “It is susceptible of interpretation on the same basis as other written instruments, the determinative factor being intent of the court as gathered from the decree, and other proper evidence.”
O'Dell v. O'Dell, 26 N.W.2d 401 (Iowa 1947). · cites it 2× “We assume it was section 10447, Code, 1939 (section 597.2, Code, 1946). If so, the court was in error.”
Luthy v. Seaburn, 46 N.W.2d 44 (Iowa 1951). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs contend "the contract for mutual wills was prohibited by Code section 597.2 which provides one spouse has no interest in the property of the other which can be made the subject of contract between them.”
McMinimee v. McMinimee, 30 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 1947). · cites it 2× “Its only service is to supply necessary written evidence of the otherwise unprovable prior oral agreement.”
Sieren v. Bauman, 436 N.W.2d 43 (Iowa 1989). “Actions between married persons for conversion of a spouse’s separate property is permitted by Iowa Code sections 597.2 and .3 (1987). A fortiori, parties who are no longer married may pursue law actions for conversion of their individual property against former spouses.”
Est. of Randall v. McKibben, 191 N.W.2d 693 (Iowa 1971). “As aforesaid the joint will, Exhibit A, and codicil thereto, Exhibit B, constitute one instrument. And by that codicil, fee title vested in agreed third party beneficiaries upon expiration of specified life estates.”
Nichols v. Nichols, 526 N.W.2d 346 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 597.2 (1993). Further, our supreme court has stated a wife has no inchoate right in her husband’s personal property and the husband may dispose of such personal property in any manner during his lifetime.”
Elizabeth Roberts v. Eric Roberts, as Tr. of the W. David Roberts Revocable Trust, Dave Roberts Growth & Ventures, Inc., & Eric Roberts as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of William David Roberts (Iowa 2024). · cites it 10× “12 Iowa Code § 597.2 . In In re Kennedy’s Estate, we interpreted an earlier iteration of this provision as meaning that “a contract between husband and wife, with reference to her interest in his estate, is of no validity whatever.”
Elizabeth Roberts v. Eric Roberts, as Tr. of the W. David Roberts Revocable Trust, Dave Roberts Growth & Ventures, Inc., & Eric Roberts as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of William David Roberts (Iowa 2024). · cites it 10× “12 Iowa Code § 597.2 . In In re Kennedy’s Estate, we interpreted an earlier iteration of this provision as meaning that “a contract between husband and wife, with reference to her interest in his estate, is of no validity whatever.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.