In the Matter of the Estate of Gladys R. Troendle, 19-2034

Gladys and Richard Troendle executed a 1964 joint will; after Richard died Gladys executed a 1986 will leaving estate equally to adopted children Steven and Michele.
By 2015 Gladys, who had declining health and received long-term care from Michele, executed a new will leaving her entire estate to Michele and expressly omitting Steven.
Steven filed probate using the 1964 will and was appointed executor; Michele later became co-executor and sued Steven alleging ten tort claims arising from his conduct as an individual and as executor.
The cases were consolidated and tried to a jury; the jury rejected Steven’s undue-influence claim and Michele’s fraud claim but found for Michele on six torts (including conversion, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, interference with inheritance, breach of fiduciary duty, and IIED).
The jury awarded specific damages: $639.13 actual and $50,000 punitive on conversion, and $24,300 on malicious prosecution; no damages were awarded for several other liability findings; the district court entered judgment (~$74,939.13) and removed Steven as co-executor.
On appeal the court (1) affirmed denial of JNOV/directed-verdict relief for Steven (many arguments deemed waived or not preserved), and (2) reversed and remanded only the damages awards for four of Michele’s claims (abuse of process, interference with inheritance, IIED, and breach of fiduciary duty) as inconsistent with the liability findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Michele)	Defendant's Argument (Steven)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / JNOV	Evidence supports jury findings; district court properly denied JNOV	Court should grant JNOV because evidence was insufficient to submit issues to jury	Affirmed denial of JNOV; many appellate arguments waived or not preserved; sufficient evidence on preserved issues
Directed verdict on abuse of process	Michele presented evidence that Steven used probate primarily for improper purposes causing harm	Steven contends initiating probate on 1964 will was reasonable while validity of 2015 will was unresolved and he was entitled to be executor	Affirmed denial of directed verdict; reasonable minds could differ, evidence supported abuse-of-process elements
Punitive damages excessiveness	N/A (no cross-issue preserved)	Punitive award excessive relative to actual damages; jury passion inflamed by counsel misconduct	Issue not preserved below; appellate review denied on that ground (no reduction)
Inconsistent damages / motion for new trial (Michele cross-appeal)	Jury liability findings entitle Michele to damages on several claims; verdict inconsistent where liability found but damages zero	N/A	Reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only for abuse of process, interference with inheritance, IIED, and breach of fiduciary duty; other awards affirmed

Thornton v. Am. Interstate Ins. Co., 897 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 2017) (standard for JNOV review)
Easton v. Howard, 751 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2008) (purpose of JNOV explained)
Smith v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 851 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Thacker v. Eldred, 388 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) (reasonable inferences for jury)
Konicek v. Loomis Bros., Inc., 457 N.W.2d 614 (Iowa 1990) (JNOV limited to grounds in directed-verdict motion)
Midwest Auto. III, LLC v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2002) (issues waived when not developed)
Heinz v. Heinz, 653 N.W.2d 334 (Iowa 2002) (standard for reviewing directed verdict denial)
Wolf v. Wolf, 690 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 2005) (de novo review for excessiveness of punitive damages)
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation and waiver principles)
Hoffman v. Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc., 442 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1989) (test for reconciling inconsistent verdicts)
Thompson v. Allen, 503 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 1993) (new trial on damages when liability intact but damages unresolved)