Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 20 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-1646 |
| Citation | 984 N.W.2d 757 |
| Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. Curt N. DANIELS, Respondent. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Tara van Brederode, Allison Schmidt, and Alexis Grove, for complainant.
Curt N. Daniels, Chariton, pro se.
In 2013, we publicly reprimanded Iowa lawyer Curt N. Daniels for frivolous filings in protracted litigation against a personal adversary. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Daniels , 838 N.W.2d 672, 673–74 (Iowa 2013). Nevertheless, Daniels, acting as his own attorney against the same adversary, continued to pursue his personal vendetta with numerous additional frivolous court filings resulting in $15,472 in court-ordered sanctions, injunctions against new filings, and more disciplinary charges against him. A panel of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing and in thorough written findings determined that Daniels had repeatedly violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:3.1 (prohibiting frivolous pleadings) and 32:8.4(d) (). The commission and the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board both recommend a six-month suspension along with other sanctions.1
On our de novo review, we find Daniels repeatedly violated both disciplinary rules. We suspend his license to practice for a minimum of six months and condition his reinstatement on payment of the $15,472 in court-ordered sanctions and compliance with the existing district court injunctions against further filings.
Daniels, now age 84, obtained his veterinarian's license in 1965 and his law license in 1973. Daniels farmed and practiced veterinary medicine for decades and did not begin practicing law for clients until 2002, when he first accepted court-appointed criminal defense work. His civil litigation experience primarily involves representing himself and Indian Creek Corporation (ICC), a corporation he wholly owned. The protracted litigation underlying this disciplinary proceeding has its genesis in 1998, when ICC lost title to real estate in Jasper County for failing to pay property taxes. See WSH Properties, L.L.C. v. Daniels , 761 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Iowa 2008). Daniels's nemesis, John Holtz, and his corporation, WSH Properties, purchased the property at a sheriff's sale. Id. After the sale, Daniels removed equipment Holtz claims was part of the tax sale, "including pens, gates, crates, waterers, and feeders." Id. WSH brought a replevin action against ICC and Daniels. Id. WSH prevailed at trial, but the district court found the jury's award was excessive and ordered a new trial or remittitur. Id. at 47–48. Daniels appealed, and the court of appeals held a new trial was required. Id. at 48. On further review, we affirmed the judgment in favor of WSH conditioned on the filing of the remittitur. Id. at 53.
Daniels did not relent. In October 2008, he filed another motion for a new trial in that case alleging newly discovered evidence of perjury and discovery violations. Daniels , 838 N.W.2d at 674. The district court denied his motion on the merits. Id. In April 2009, Daniels filed a "Renewed Motion for New Trial," which the district court denied. Id. at 675. Daniels appealed, and while that appeal was pending, Daniels filed another petition for relief. Id. That too was denied, and Daniels appealed yet again. Id. The court of appeals affirmed the district court in both appeals. Id. We publicly reprimanded Daniels for his frivolous filings in violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.1. Id. at 678–79.
Meanwhile, the State of Iowa won a judgment of $95,000 against Daniels and ICC for waste-handling violations on the Jasper County land. See Daniels v. State , No. 07-1275, 2008 WL 4569870, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2008). In 2006, a Holtz-owned business purchased the judgment, replacing the state as judgment creditor. Daniels v. Holtz , 794 N.W.2d 813, 815 (Iowa 2010). Holtz pursued collection. Id. On July 26, 2006, ICC's stock was auctioned at a sheriff's sale. Id. at 816. Holtz was the winning bidder. Id. Daniels sued to set aside the sale in February 2007, claiming that Holtz fraudulently chilled the bidding. See id. at 816–17. The district court granted Holtz summary judgment; Daniels appealed. Id. at 817. We concluded that a question of material fact existed whether Holtz's actions chilled bidding. Id. at 824. We remanded that case for trial, id. at 825, and the district court set aside the sheriff's sale, concluding that Holtz acted fraudulently, Daniels v. Holtz , No. 12-1522, 2013 WL 5743640, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2013). The district court denied Holtz's motion for a new trial. Holtz appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the ruling setting aside the sheriff's sale. Id. at 2.
Holtz continued to pursue collection of his $95,000 judgment, and ICC's shares went to a second sheriff's sale, where they were again purchased by Holtz. Daniels never successfully challenged the validity of the second sheriff's sale.2 Instead, in numerous subsequent court actions, Daniels myopically continued to rely on his victory against Holtz in the first sheriff's sale while ignoring the legal effect of the second sale.
Daniels testified that this litigation "has plagued me for 20 years" and "so consumed" him that he has not represented any other clients since 2016. He admitted that "it just took all my time and then some." We recount highlights from what a federal judge aptly described as a "tortured history"3 :
1. January 20, 2010: the district court denied Daniels's petition for further relief after our 2008 ruling in WSH Properties, L.L.C. v. Daniels , 761 N.W.2d 45, and stated:
Mr. Daniels seems never to run out of filings in a suit that was tried to a jury over five years ago.... Mr. Daniels’ efforts ... have entered the realm of abuse of the legal system.
The district court entered the following injunction against Daniels:
2. July 14, 2014: the district court denied Daniels's renewed request for a constructive trust and denied monetary awards for unjust enrichment or restitution.
3. April 6, 2016: the court of appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Daniels's requests on claim preclusion grounds. Daniels v. Holtz , No. 14-1290, 2016 WL 1366760, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2016).
4. June 2, 2016: we denied further review.
5. October 31, 2016: the United States Supreme Court denied Daniels's petition for writ of certiorari. Daniels v. Holtz , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 377, 377, 196 L.Ed.2d 294 (2016).
6. April 5, 2017: the district court dismissed Daniels's petition for "relief identical to that requested and denied twice before." In this petition, Daniels requested that the district court enter a judgment overruling the court of appeals decision of April 6, 2016. The district court pointedly responded:
[Daniels's] request to overrule the appellate court decision defies explanation. A decision of the court of appeals is final and shall not be reviewed by any other court except upon the granting by the supreme court of an application for further review as provided in section 602.4102.... The Iowa Court of Appeals decision ... filed April 6, 2016, is sound in its reasoning and unambiguous in its conclusion. Accordingly, this Court lacks both the authority and the will to contradict it. ... [G]iven that [Daniels has] exhausted [his] remedies ... and failed to raise even a close case in this matter, Attorney Daniels should finally accept that the end of this litigation was reached many years ago.
7. June 9, 2017: we denied Daniels's petition for writ of certiorari.
8. July 24, 2017: upon Daniels's motion to reconsider, we confirmed our denial of Daniels's petition.
9. January 4, 2018: the district court dismissed Daniels's petition because "the issues raised in the petition have been raised before in one form or another and the decision[s] of prior judges have been affirmed on appeal."
10. April 6, 2018: we dismissed Daniels's appeal.
11. April 26, 2018: we denied Daniels's petition for rehearing and ordered Daniels "to file no additional filings in this case."
12. March 16, 2018: the district court denied Daniels's motion to vacate Holtz's $95,000 judgment. The court ruled:
1) jurisdiction of the district court terminated upon affirmance of the final judgment on appeal; 2) it is time-barred pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1013 ; 3) the underlying judgment remains unsatisfied and not subject to discharge pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1016 ; 4) [Daniels] did not pay the filing fee and did not support the Motion by affidavit as required by Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1013(1) ; 5) and, [Daniels] failed to comply with the notice requirement of Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1013(2).
13. November 25, 2018: the district court dismissed Daniels's petition for actual and punitive damages against Holtz, his business entities, and the attorneys and firms that represented them. Daniels had named as additional defendants the Finley Law Firm and Attorney Kermit B. Anderson; Stewart and Associates, P.C. and Attorney Robert L. Stewart; and Brick Gentry, P.C. and Attorneys James Nervig, Billy Mallory, and Matthew Cronin. In his petition, Daniels...
To continue reading
Request your trial