William B. Elson v. Orrie J. Koehlmoos ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1152
Filed May 6, 2015
WILLIAM B. ELSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ORRIE J. KOEHLMOOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink,
Judge.
Appeal from order granting specific performance in action for breach of
contract. AFFIRMED.
David H. Luginbill and Michael J. Streit of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des
Moines, for appellant.
David W. Nelmark and Stephen H. Locher of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des
Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Orrie Koehlmoos appeals from an order granting specific performance that
was entered following a grant of partial summary judgment in favor of William
Elson on Elson’s claim for breach of contract. Although the ruling granting partial
summary judgment and the order for specific performance did not dispose of all
claims in the case, we have satisfied ourselves that we have jurisdiction over this
appeal. See Lyon v. Willie, 288 N.W.2d 884, 887 (Iowa 1980) (“Two final orders
are possible in a single case, one putting it beyond the power of the court to put
the parties in their original positions in relation to a specific issue, and the other
adjudicating remaining issues in the case.”); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 188
N.W.2d 288, 293 (Iowa 1971) (noting order to pay money from partition action to
bank would put payment beyond the power of the court to restore the parties to
their original positions).
We review the district court’s order on summary judgment for correction of
errors at law. See Howard v. Schildberg Constr. Co., Inc., 528 N.W.2d 550, 552
(Iowa 1995); Farm & City Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 509 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Iowa
1993). We view the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the
summary judgment motion. See Gerst v. Marshall, 549 N.W.2d 810, 812 (Iowa
1996). We must decide whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and
whether the law was correctly applied. See Farm & City Ins. Co., 509 N.W.2d at
489.
Koehlmoos argues there are several disputed issues of material fact
precluding the entry of summary judgment and the subsequent order for specific
3
performance. Koehlmoos also argues the district court erred in applying the law
regarding the interpretation of contracts. Finally, Koehmoos argues there were
disputed issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the claim for breach of
the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. We conclude the district court
correctly stated and applied the controlling law and correctly determined there
was no genuine issue of material fact. As set forth in the district court’s thorough
and well-reasoned rulings on the motions for summary judgment and order
granting specific performance, the language of the contract to be enforced was
plain and unambiguous, Koehlmoos breached the contract, and Elson was
entitled to specific performance of the same. The judgment of the district court is
affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (d), (e); see also
O’Haver v. Moore, No. 06-0619, 2007 WL 911887, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 28,
2007) (affirming grant of partial summary judgment on a claim for specific
performance in real estate dispute).
AFFIRMED.