Greer v. Bruck, No. 3-822/02-1025 (Iowa App. 1/28/2004)
| Decision Date | 28 January 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-822/02-1025,3-822/02-1025 |
| Parties | DENNIS E. GREER and NANCY K. GREER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONNA J. BRUCK and BRUCE BRUCK, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, Keith E. Burgett, Judge.
The Brucks appeal a district court order finding they lacked standing to bring their counterclaim against the Greers.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Robert Kohorst of Kohorst, Early, Gross & Louis, Harlan, for appellant.
J. C. Salvo and Bryan Swain of Salvo, Deren, Schenck & Lauterbach, P.C., Harlan, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
In August 1998 Dennis and Nancy Greer (the Greers) entered into a real estate contract to purchase farmland in Shelby County from Dennis's mother, Marjie Greer. In August 2001 Marjie executed an assignment which stated she desired "to transfer and convey her rights in the contract and real estate to her children . . . ." Under the assignment Marjie agreed to "give, assign, transfer, convey and set over to" her ten children "that certain real estate contract" executed between Marjie and the Greers.
The Greers filed the present action on January 3, 2002, alleging that they had made all the payments required by the real estate contract, and that one of Marjie's children, Donna Bruck, and her husband, Bruce Bruck, refused to execute and deliver the deed transferring their interest in the real estate. The Greers sought specific performance of the contract. The Brucks filed a counterclaim, asserting that the Greers had defrauded Marjie by misrepresenting the value of the real estate conveyed by the contract. The Brucks sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The Greers filed a motion for separate adjudication of law points, claiming the Brucks did not have standing to attack the validity of the real estate contract because they were not a party to the contract. The Brucks responded by stating that under the 2001 assignment they possessed all of Marjie's rights relative to the contract.
The district court determined the Brucks did not have standing and dismissed their counterclaim. The court found the contract's assignment language did not assign anything other than a "certain real estate contract." The court noted the dispositive clause of the assignment did not contain the same language as the precatory portion, "transfer and convey her rights." The court concluded the assignment transferred an interest in the real estate contract, and not a potpourri of legal interests. The Brucks' Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion was overruled by the district court, resulting in this appeal.
This case was filed in equity, and generally, our review would be de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Our standard of review for adjudication of law points, however, is for the correction of errors at law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 623 N.W.2d 871, 876 (Iowa 2001). This is because a ruling on a motion for adjudication of law points adjudicates purely legal issues. State ex rel. Miller v. Hydro Mag, Ltd., 379 N.W.2d 911, 913 (Iowa 1986).
The Brucks claim that Marjie assigned them all of her rights, remedies, and defenses under the contract. They argue as assignees of Marjie's interest they have standing to challenge the validity of the contract and the district court erred by concluding otherwise.
Standing requires that a party have a sufficient stake in a controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Birkhofer ex rel. Johannsen v. Brammeier, 610 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa 2000). A party has standing if he or she has (1) a specific, personal, and legal interest in the litigation and (2) injury. Bushby v. Washington County Conservation Bd., 654 N.W.2d 494, 496 (Iowa 2002).
An assignment is a transfer of rights. Midland Life Ins. Co. v. Mercy Clinics, Inc., 579 N.W.2d 823, 833 (Iowa 1998). The assignee assumes the rights, remedies, and benefits of the assignor. Red Giant Oil Co. v. Lawlor, 528 N.W.2d 524, 533 (Iowa 1995). The assignee also takes the property subject to all defenses to which the assignor is subject. Id.
"Unless a contrary intent is manifest or inferable, an assignment transfers to the assignee the assignor's entire interest or rights in the property." Padzenskyv. Kinzenbaw, 343 N.W.2d 467, 471 (Iowa 1984). In Iowa, to determine the nature of an assignment the court must take into account the intent of the parties. United States v. G & T Enters., L.C., 978 F. Supp. 1232, 1239 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
The district court determined the language in the assignment which stated Marjie "desires to transfer and convey her rights in the contract and real estate to her children . . ." was merely precatory. Precatory expressions are words of entreaty, request, desire, wish, or recommendation, as distinguished from direct and imperative terms. In re Estate of Hansen, 264 N.W.2d 746, 749 (Iowa 1978). Compliance with a provision which is precatory is not compulsory. Phelps Mortgage Co. v. Thomas, 194 Iowa 1078, 1083, 190 N.W. 399, 401 (1922). The terms "wi...
To continue reading
Request your trial