Caeden Tinklenberg v. Eurosport Motors, Inc. ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0394
Filed April 26, 2023
CAEDEN TINKLENBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
EUROSPORT MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County,
Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.
Caeden Tinklenberg appeals the denial of his combined motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial. AFFIRMED.
Jason Springer of Springer Law Firm, PLLC, Madrid, for appellant.
Jordan M. Talsma of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson,
P.C., Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
Caeden Tinklenberg purchased a used vehicle from Eurosport Motors, Inc.
(Eurosport). Shortly thereafter, the vehicle began experiencing engine problems.
When Tinklenberg inquired about replacing the engine, the vehicle manufacturer
reported that the vehicle identification number did not match the engine serial
number—meaning the engine in the vehicle sold to Tinklenberg was not the
vehicle’s original engine. Tinklenberg brought this action against Eurosport
alleging negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation. Eurosport
disclosed in discovery that it had replaced the vehicle’s engine prior to its sale.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Eurosport on
both counts. Tinklenberg filed a combined motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict (JNOV) and new trial. The district court issued a written ruling denying
the motion following a hearing.1 Specifically, the JNOV part of the ruling addressed
the negligent-misrepresentation claim, and the new-trial part of the ruling
addressed the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim. Tinklenberg never filed a
motion under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.904 requesting the court to
expand its new-trial ruling to address his negligent-misrepresentation claim. See
Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2) (permitting a party to request enlargement of a judgment
or decree issued following a bench trial), (3) (permitting a motion under rule
1.904(2) to seek enlargement of “another court order, ruling, judgment, or decree”).
Instead, Tinklenberg filed this appeal.
1The hearing was reported. However, the combined certificate shows a transcript
of that hearing was never ordered, so we do not have it.
3
Tinklenberg’s appellate brief heading argues, “The trial court erred in
denying [his] motion for [JNOV] and motion for new trial.” Although the substance
of Tinklenberg’s brief focuses on the motion for new trial, we first address his
motion for JNOV. A motion for JNOV “must stand on grounds raised in [a] directed
verdict motion.” Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477, 493 (Iowa 2011) (citation
omitted). Appellate review is likewise “limited to those grounds raised in the
directed verdict motion.” Id. at 494 (citation omitted). Tinklenberg never sought a
directed verdict upon which to base a motion for JNOV, so the court could not grant
his motion for JNOV. We are also unable to provide any relief via JNOV.
Turning to Tinklenberg’s arguments related to the motion for new trial, he
again runs into a procedural impediment. As noted, the district court’s ruling on
Tinklenberg’s motion for new trial only addressed the fraudulent-misrepresentation
claim. However, Tinklenberg’s appellate brief only discusses the negligent-
misrepresentation claim. The district court never made a ruling on the motion for
new trial with respect to negligent misrepresentation, and Tinklenberg never
sought an expanded ruling. So he has not preserved error, and we have nothing
to review.2 See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).
As Tinklenberg fails to present us with any claim preserved for our review,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2 Even when no party challenges error preservation, we may raise the issue on our
own. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa
2000) (“[T]his court will consider on appeal whether error was preserved despite
the opposing party’s omission in not raising this issue at trial or on appeal.”).