Linda Linn and Mark Shuck v. Pat Montgomery, Christy Schrader, and Brad Allen, 903 N.W.2d 337

Mark Shuck and Linda Linn (husband and wife) lived in a condominium association; Shuck was former HOA president (2004–2008).
Neighbors Pat Montgomery and Christy Schrader reviewed association finances in 2012 and prepared a report alleging improper associations payments, including an alleged unauthorized water line serving Shuck/Linn’s unit.
Montgomery and Schrader gave a binder of allegations to Bettendorf police in Dec. 2012; Detective Levetzow investigated and filed a criminal complaint in March 2013 charging Shuck with second-degree theft; charges were later dismissed as time-barred.
Linn and Shuck sued for defamation and malicious prosecution; defendants moved for summary judgment (statute-of-limitations defense to defamation; defendants argued they only furnished information to police on malicious prosecution).
At trial, the jury found for defendants on Linn’s loss-of-consortium claim and on Shuck’s remaining defamation claims; the district court had previously granted summary judgment/partial summary judgment dismissing pre-March 10, 2013 defamation claims and the malicious prosecution claims.
On appeal Shuck challenged (1) the statute-of-limitations rulings for pre‑March 10, 2013 defamation statements and (2) summary judgment dismissing his malicious prosecution claim; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the statute‑of‑limitations issue due to issue preclusion and affirmed dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery rule applies to toll the 2‑year defamation statute of limitations or each republication restarts limitations	Shuck: discovery rule applies to secret/inherently undiscoverable statements to law enforcement; republication rule restarts limitations	Montgomery/Schrader: statements before Mar 10, 2013 barred by 2‑year statute	Court did not decide merits; declined to reach because jury’s special interrogatory in Linn’s loss‑of‑consortium claim precluded any pre‑Mar 10, 2013 defamation facts (issue preclusion)
Whether defendants instigated/procured criminal prosecution (malicious prosecution element)	Shuck: defendants went beyond furnishing information, knowingly withheld/withdrew water‑line facts initially, so they procured prosecution	Montgomery/Schrader: they only furnished information; prosecution decision was made independently by police/assistant county attorney	Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: no genuine issue that defendants merely supplied information and prosecution decision was independent; even if false info provided, plaintiff failed to show officials relied on it

Lukecart v. Swift & Co., 130 N.W.2d 716 (Iowa 1964) (furnishing information to authorities is not procurement of prosecution when third party has uncontrolled discretion)
Rasmussen Buick‑GMC, Inc. v. Roach, 314 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa 1982) (exception where knowingly false information can support procurement if it causes prosecution)
King v. Graham, 126 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. 2003) (false information must be material/necessary to official’s decision to prosecute)
Perzynski v. Cerro Gordo County, 953 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (defendants providing information did not instigate prosecution where officials conducted independent investigation)
Wilson v. Hayes, 464 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 1990) (elements of malicious prosecution claim)