### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 19

– 1572
S ubmitted October 15, 2020

— Filed November 6, 2020

EARL FREER, Successor Administrator to SHELLI R. FREER, as Administrator of the Estate of NICOLE J. SANSOM , and MICHAEL SANSOM, Individually , Appellants ,

vs. DAC, INC. d/b/a PRAIRIE HOUSE , Appellee

.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County,
John D. Telleen , Judge.

The plaintiff s appeal the district court’s denial of a motion to enforce a high

- low agreement following a prior appeal in which we affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendant. AFFIRMED.

Per curiam.

Thomas Kyle of Hupy and Abraham, S.C., P.C., Milwaukee, WI, f or appellant s
.

Patric k L. Woodward of McDonald, Woodward & Carlson, P.C., Davenport , for appellee.2

PER CURIAM
. This is our second time addressing an appeal in this case. While the jury was deliberating, the p arties in this lawsuit agreed to limit their risks
with a high

- low agreement

. The deal put caps on what the plaintiff (an
estate administrator named Earl Freer and an individual named Michael Sansom, referred to together as “Freer” ) would receive and what the
defendant ( an entity named DAC , I nc. ) would pay: a $100,000 minimu m if the jury returned a verdict any lower than that , and a $1 million
maximum if the jury returned a verdict any higher than that

. If the jury’s
verdi ct fell between $100,000 and $1 million, the jury’s number would
control. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of DAC, thus $ 0

. T he district court entered a judgment dated July 25, 2017, dismissing the case
consistent with the verdict. But instead of demanding its $100,000 from DAC, Freer filed a posttri al motion with the district court seeking a new
trial based on alleged errors during the trial and a change of venue. DAC , in response , filed a motion to enforce the high

- low agreement and to strike Freer’s post trial motions as violations of the agreement

. Freer filed a
resistance to DAC’s motion to enforce the agreement

. The district court , at a hearing on the motions , said it would grant DAC’s motion to enforce
the agreement and strike Freer’s posttrial motion as moot

. B ut b efore the district court issued a written order on the motions following the hearing , Freer filed an appeal

. We retained the case. Our rules require the district court to file a written final order or judgment before an appeal can proceed. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.101(1)( b ). W e

r emanded the case to the district court to enter a written order on the competing posttrial motions nunc pro tunc

. I t did so, granting ( as it3 previously indicated it would) DAC’s motion to enforce the agreement and striking Freer’s posttrial motion.
W e t hen picked up the appeal again

. W e held that because Freer
filed the appeal before the district court filed its written ruling on the post trial motions , Freer waived and abandoned these motion s
. Freer v. DAC, Inc. , 929 N.W.2d 685, 68 7

– 8 8 (Iowa 2019). The district court lost jurisdiction to rule on the posttrial motions the moment Freer filed his appeal, and we held the nunc pro tunc order was no fix. Id. at 688. Finding no issues preserved for appellate review, we affirmed the district court’s July 2 5 order that entered judgment for DAC. Id. Which brings us to this appeal. After we issued our opinion, DAC refused to pay the $100,000 under the high

- low agreement

. So i n a role reversal, Freer filed a motion in the district court to enforce the high

- low agreement. And in an identical role reversal, DAC resisted the motion and
moved to strike Freer’s motion. Freer argued that the district court’s

nunc pro tunc order granting DAC’s own earlier motion to enforce the high

- low agreem ent resolve d any dispute on whether there existed an enforceable agreement , and that the district court should thus enforce the nunc pro tunc order granting DAC’s motion to enforce the agreement

. The
district court disagreed, citing our opinion affirming the July 25 order that entered judgment for DAC. The district court thus denied Freer’s motion
to enforce the agreement , and Freer brought this appeal.
Freer’s new appeal is an attack on the same July 25 order that we already affirmed in the first appeal, now just asserting different grounds

. “It is the established rule that appeals may not be by piecemeal.” State v.
Di Paglia , 248 Iowa 97, 100, 78 N.W.2d 472, 473 (1956). Freer makes no attack on the judgment that couldn’t have been raised in the prior appeal. Having challenged the judgment in the prior appeal and having received4 an adverse ruling, “ such is the law of the case and may not again be argued, even though a different reason for so claiming is now urged. ” Id.
The tenets governing our review of Freer’s current appeal are well

established: We are firmly committed to the doctrine that the legal principles announced and the views expressed by us in an opinion, right or wrong, are conclusively binding, throughout further progress of the c ase, upon the litigants, the trial court upon remand and this court in later appeals. Likewise, matters necessarily involved in the determination of a question are settled by the opinion when such matters are again presented on a subsequent appeal.

D es Moines Bank & Tr. Co. v. Iowa S. Uti l s

. Co. of Del. , 245 Iowa 186, 189, 61 N.W.2d 724, 726 (1953).
Because Freer ’s present challenge to the judgment was already conclusively resolved in his prior appeal , we affirm the district court ruling

. W e offer no comment and express no opinion about any rights or defenses concerning enforcement of the high

- low agreement that might be brought in a separate action.
AFFIRMED. This opinion shall be published.