Leanne Loehr and Ed Loehr v. Craig W. Mettille, Bromo, Inc., d/b/a First General Servicemaster 380
806 N.W.2d 270
Iowa2011Background
- Home flooded by upstairs toilet; Loehrs engaged Mettille's ServiceMaster and First General for cleanup and repairs.
- Progress payments and sign-offs were required; funds were disbursed from EMC insurance checks after mortgage issuances were cleared.
- Exhibit RR, a cell phone record compilation, was introduced to prove Mettille’s communications; it purportedly showed three calls with Elert.
- Loehrs signed off on phases and paid $15,000; project delays and disputes over scope and quality ensued.
- At trial, Loehrs argued Exhibit RR was fabrication; after verdict, Loehrs sought a new trial alleging misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the district court grant a new trial despite untimely objection? | Loehrs rely on Schmitt to permit discretionary relief. | Objections must be timely; error preservation required. | Yes, district court could grant under Schmitt. |
| Was Exhibit RR a deliberate fabrication by Mettille and prejudicial? | Exhibit RR was false and used to mislead the jury. | Exhibit RR was the result of a mistaken reading, not fabrication. | Exhibit RR was not a deliberate fabrication; no clear prejudice shown. |
| Did the district court err in granting a new trial for defamation and wrongful debt collection? | New trial necessary due to misconduct affecting credibility. | No misconduct or prejudice; juries’ findings should stand. | District court abused discretion; no substantial prejudice; reversed. |
| What governs error-preservation and discretionary retrial when trial counsel delayed objections? | Schmitt allows reconsideration despite delay. | Delay shows lack of timely objection; reversal warranted. | Schmitt permits discretionary retrial despite delay; not dispositive here. |
| What is the standard of review for district courts’ grant of new trials for misconduct? | Circuit would defer to trial court’s assessment of prejudice. | Abuse of discretion requires clearly untenable grounds. | New-trial grant reversed; misconduct not established; verdicts upheld as just. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc., 170 N.W.2d 632 (Iowa 1969) (counsel's failure weighs heavily but may be overcome for substantial justice)
- Farr v. Fuller, 8 Iowa 347 (Iowa 1859) (district court may order new trial despite objections; substantial justice)
- Olson v. Sumpter, 728 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2007) (untimely objections to jury instructions cannot be considered for new trial)
- Lehigh Clay Prods., Ltd. v. Iowa DOT, 512 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 1994) (trial court inherent power to grant new trial; not limited to specific grounds)
- Estate of Hagedorn ex rel. Hagedorn v. Peterson, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004) (inherent authority to grant a new trial when substantial justice not done)
- Wilson v. IBP, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 132 (Iowa 1996) (district courts have broad discretion in new-trial decisions)