SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, IOWA COURT OF APPEALS
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
This is the summary from the Iowa Court of Appeals decision from February 27, 2008. Periodically I intend to republish selected decision summaries having to do with torts, personal injury or just cases of interest that touch on what could lead to a civil claim for damages. Civil trial lawyers may find criminal cases of interest because they suggest appropriate jury instructions in a civil case. The following summaries are directly from the Court website.
This is the summary from the Iowa Court of Appeals decision from February 27, 2008. Periodically I intend to republish selected decision summaries having to do with torts, personal injury or just cases of interest that touch on what could lead to a civil claim for damages. Civil trial lawyers may find criminal cases of interest because they suggest appropriate jury instructions in a civil case. The following summaries are directly from the Court website.
No. 07-0471. [8-066] SCHNEIDER v. RODGERS
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County, Patrick M. Carr, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ. Opinion by Huitink, P.J.
Dennis Schneider appeals the district court's ruling dismissing his action against his former wife, Debra Rodgers, for malicious prosecution and fraud in relation to her pursuit of a modification of their dissolution decree. OPINION HOLDS: The rationale behind Debra's modification argument was so persuasive that two separate judges, in two pre-hearing rulings, agreed with Debra's position. The mere fact that a third judge ultimately rejected this argument does not mean she did not have probable cause to resort to a court to settle this dispute. Because Debra had probable cause to seek a modification of the controlling decree, we conclude the district court properly dismissed Dennis's claim for malicious prosecution. We also find nothing to conclude that any of Debra's statements or arguments throughout these proceedings constitute a material misrepresentation of fact. Accordingly, we find Dennis failed to prove his fraud claim by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence,
No. 06-2026. [8-059] STATE v. CASHATT
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, John C. Mackey, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ. Opinion by Zimmer, J.
Ricky Lee Cashatt appeals from his convictions following a jury trial for false imprisonment in violation of Iowa Code section 710.7 (2005) and assault causing bodily injury in violation of sections 708.1 and 708.2(2). He claims (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the district court "failed to properly dismiss Count I and Count II of the trial information upon motion"; (3) the court erred in overruling his objections to certain jury instructions; and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. OPINION HOLDS: There is sufficient evidence in the record when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the State to support Cashatt's convictions for false imprisonment and assault causing bodily injury. We preserve Cashatt's claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding his right to testify for possible postconviction relief proceedings. We deny his remaining ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, deem his other claims waived pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.14(1)(c), and affirm his convictions.
No. 06-1633. [7-491] GAEDE v. STANSBERRY
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Lawrence H. Fautsch, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ. Opinion by Sackett, C.J.
Plaintiffs purchased riverfront real estate in the city of Marquette from defendants. Defendants conveyed the property by warranty deed. Following court action determining the city of Marquette had title to an approximately thirty-three foot wide strip across the property conveyed, plaintiffs successfully sued defendants for breach of warranty of title. On appeal defendants challenge both the finding that they are liable to plaintiffs for breach of warranty and the amount awarded to plaintiffs as damages. OPINION HOLDS: Breach of Warranty of Title. To prevail on a claim for breach of warranty of title, the plaintiffs must show that the title warranted to them has failed and that a paramount title has been positively asserted against them and the asserted title is paramount and that they have suffered an actual or constructive eviction from their land. The prior court determination the city owned the strip of property in question is sufficient to establish the breach of warranty. Defendants' argument concerning good faith purchasers for value is not applicable here. Damages. There is substantial evidence to support the proportional-value measure of damages used by the court. The summary list of damages provided a reasonable basis in the evidence from which the court could infer or approximate the damages. Concerning attorney fees as damages, defendants did not establish equitable estoppel. Iowa law does not require notice and an opportunity to defend title before awarding attorney fees as damages. We note defendants were aware of the prior suit and did not take steps to defend the title they warranted.
Copyright © 2008 Iowa Judicial Branch