Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 6-301 / 05-0404 Filed August 9, 2006 WSH PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURT N. DANIELS and INDIAN CREEK CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, John Lloyd, Judge.

Defendants appeal following a jury verdict and judgment entry in favor of plaintiff in an action for a writ of replevin. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Curt Daniels, Chariton, pro se and for Indian Creek Corporation, appellants. James Nervig of Brick, Gentry, Bowers, Swartz, Stoltze, Schuling & Levis, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.

2

MILLER, J. Defendants Curt Daniels and Indian Creek Corporation appeal following a jury verdict and judgment entry in favor of plaintiff WSH Properties, LLC, which awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $246,000 and possession of certain property the defendants removed from realty the plaintiff acquired under a tax deed. Because it appears the jury's verdict was the result of passion, we reverse and remand for a new trial. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. 1 Curt Daniels is the sole shareholder of Indian Creek Corporation (ICC). ICC owned certain real property located near Mingo, Iowa, which it used in the operation of a hog confinement facility. After ICC ceased paying taxes on the Mingo property, WSH Properties, LLC (WSH) obtained title to the Mingo property by valid tax deed. Sometime thereafter, Daniels entered onto the Mingo property and removed property used in the hog confinement operation, including headgates, tailgates, anchor posts, pen dividers, fenceline feeders, bowl drinkers, and farrowing crates, decks, and deck floors (disputed property). WSH filed a petition for a writ of replevin, seeking return of the disputed property and damages for its detention. Daniels filed an answer denying he was a proper party, as well as a motion for summary judgment asserting ICC was the only proper party defendant as it was the one that had removed and was in possession of the disputed property. The plaintiff and the defendants also filed cross-motions for summary judgment in which each side asserted the right to
1

This matter has an extensive procedural history, which includes a petition for relief filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court and resulting stay, and an unsuccessful application for interlocutory appeal. We have limited our description of the background facts and proceedings to those events we find relevant to the issues in this appeal.

3

possession of the disputed property could be determined as a matter of law: WSH asserted the disputed property was part of the real estate, and ICC and Daniels asserted it was personal property and thus belonged to ICC. The district court set all pending summary judgment motions for hearing. In its summary judgment ruling, the court ruled on three issues, only one of which is relevant to this appeal: whether the disputed property was subject to assessment and taxation as real property under Iowa Code section 427A.1 (2003) and thus title to the disputed property passed to WSH under the tax deed, or whether the disputed property was personal property that could not be acquired by virtue of the tax deed and thus belonged to ICC. 2 Determining the record contained disputed issues of material fact on this question, the court denied both summary judgment requests. The court stated the foregoing was the only issue raised by the defendants, and did not rule on Daniels's individual summary judgment motion. However the court did find, under the summary

judgment record, that the disputed property "was removed and is presently stored at [Daniels's] farm here in Lucas County." The matter proceeded to jury trial. The jury was instructed, without

objection, that WSH's right to possession of the disputed property depended upon proof the property fell within certain descriptive categories. These

instructions mirrored provisions of section 427A.1 regarding what property, other than land, could be assessed and taxed as real property. The jury returned a verdict that found WSH was entitled to possession of all the disputed property, found that the value of the various items of disputed property totaled $299,850,
2

The court also found the defendants were entitled to a jury trial, and that their counterclaims should be stricken.

4

and found WSH was entitled to damages for wrongful detention of the disputed property in the amount of $533,952. Daniels and ICC moved for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a number of grounds, including an assertion that the jury's verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. The district court denied the motions, except to the extent they challenged the values the jury had set for the items of disputed property and the amount of the jury's damage award for wrongful detention. The court rejected the notion that the verdict was the result of

prejudice against the defendants because they operated a hog confinement facility, Daniels was a criminal defense attorney, or the plaintiff had implied the defendants had vandalized the Mingo property. However, the court agreed that the jury's awards exceeded the permissible range of the evidence. It determined the evidence supported a total value for the disputed property of only $120,000, and total wrongful detention damages of $246,000. The court accordingly denied the defendants' motions, provided that WSH would file a remittitur for amounts in excess of the foregoing. WSH agreed that the record supported the court's modifications, agreed to a remittitur, and elected to receive delivery of the disputed property rather than the value of that property. The court subsequently entered judgment in favor of WSH for damages in the amount of $246,000 and possession of the disputed property. The defendants appeal, raising four claims. First, they assert the district court erred in denying Daniels's individual motion for summary judgment because ICC was the only proper party to this action. Second, they assert the court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment regarding the right to

5

possession of the disputed property, because under chapter 427A the disputed property was the personal property of ICC. Third, they assert that, because the jury awarded ICC property to WSH, the verdict violated their right to due process. Fourth, and finally, the defendants assert the jury's damage award was the result of passion and prejudice, and should accordingly be set aside. II. Scope of Review. An action for a writ of replevin is an ordinary proceeding. Iowa Code

Download WSH PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURT N. DANIELS and INDIAN CREEK CO

Iowa Law