Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 684.12 (2026)

Supplementary provisions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless displaced by the provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause, supplement its provisions. 94 Acts, ch 1121, §14 C95, §684.10 2016 Acts, ch 1040, §14, 15 C2017, §684.12 Former §684.12 transferred to §684.15; 2016 Acts, ch 1040, §14\n\n 684.13 Uniformity of application and construction. This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it. 94 Acts, ch 1121, §15 C95, §684.11 2016 Acts, ch 1040, §14, 15 C2017, §684.13

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–2017 · leading case: Winegard v. Larsen, 260 N.W.2d 816 (Iowa 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Winegard v. Larsen, 260 N.W.2d 816 (Iowa 1977). “See § 684.12, The Code. We believe the legislature intended § 598.”

Alice M. Shea, plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. Theresa Lorenz, Kristin Ostrander, Valerie Bisanz, Thomas Lorenz, & Heidi Lorenz, defendants-appellees/cross-appellants, & Mark Lorenz (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 684.12 . The focus in the probate action would be on the validity of Alice’s alimony claim against the estate and whether the assets in Bill’s estate were sufficient to satisfy that claim, whereas the focus in the UFTA action was on whether fraud was committed in…”

Alice M. Shea v. Theresa Lorenz & Mark Lorenz, defendants-appellees/cross-appellants, & Kristin Ostrander, Valerie Bisanz, Thomas Lorenz, Heidi Lorenz, Rob E. Dickinson & R.E. Dickinson Inv. Advisors, LLC (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 684.12 . The focus in the probate action would be on the validity of Alice’s alimony claim against the estate and whether the assets in Bill’s estate were sufficient to satisfy that claim, whereas the focus in the UFTA action was on whether fraud was committed in…”

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.