IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1697

Filed August 5, 2015

ALLAN SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

DAVID J. SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Nancy L. 

Whittenburg, Judge. 

Allan Smith appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED.

David J. Dutton, James R. Hellman, and Erin Patrick Lyons of Dutton, 

Braun, Staack & Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant.

Stephen F. Avery and Andrea M. Smook of Cornwall, Avery, Bjornstad, 

Scott & Davis, Spencer, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., McDonald, J., and Eisenhauer, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015). 
2

EISENHAUER, S.J.

Allan Smith appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to 

David Smith. Allan claims the district court erred in finding the doctrine of issue 

preclusion barred his claim. Allan contends the issue in the current action is not 

identical to the issues in his previous action and, therefore, the district court erred 

in granting David’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the district court’s 

ruling pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1) (a), (d), and (e). 

We adopt the district court’s statement of the background facts and 

proceedings: 

Plaintiff Allan Smith (hereinafter “Allan”) and Defendant 

Dr. David Smith (hereinafter “David”) are brothers. Allan is 

employed as a farmer in Howard County, Iowa. David is the 

superintendent of the Spirit Lake Community School District. The

parties’ parents, father Clem J. Smith (hereinafter “Clem”) and 

mother Judy Ann Smith (hereinafter “Judy”), are deceased. Clem 

passed away on December 4, 2013, and Judy passed on June 21, 

2013. Clem and Judy had five children living at the time of their

death: Allan, David, Donald Smith (hereinafter “Donald”), Jean 

Kreitzer (hereinafter “Jean”), and Carol Smith (hereinafter “Carol”).

Prior to Clem’s death, Allan and Clem farmed together on a 

cash rent and sharing of work arrangement. As part of the shared 

arrangement, Allan and Clem occasionally purchased and owned 

farm equipment jointly and shared the use of equipment in their 

farming operation. Sons David and Donald were never involved in

Allan and Clem’s farming operation.

Clem and Judy executed estate plans on December 29, 

2009. The estate planning consisted of a Family Trust. Clem and 

Judy named themselves as Trustees of their own trusts. As part of 

the estate plan, Clem and Judy transferred one thousand (1000) 

acres of jointly owned farmland in Howard County, Iowa, along with 

other farm assets, to the trusts by warranty deed. Upon the deaths 

of Clem and Judy Smith, the trust provided that the farm real estate 

would be divided equally between Allan, David and Donald, and the 

farm machinery, equipment and tools in the estate would be divided

equally between Allan and Donald.

On August 2, 2011, Clem and Judy signed a real estate 

contract for the sale of an undivided two-thirds interest in their farm 

real estate together with machinery, tools and equipment to David 
3

for $1.8 million. Allan contends the price David paid for the farm is 

substantially below the real estate’s fair market value. Also on 

August 2, 2011, Clem and Judy deeded one-third of their farm real 

estate to David as a gift.

On March 21, 2012, Allan Smith brought suit against his 

brothers David and Donald in Howard County, Iowa. . . . Allan’s 

petition alleged seven counts against his brothers: 

(1) unconscionability; (2) tortious interference with business; 

(3) tortious interference with inheritance; (4) intentional and/or 

negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) conversion; (6) request 

for injunction; and (7) corporate veil/alter ego/fraudulent 

conveyance allegations. On December 10, 2012, the Iowa District 

Court for Howard County, Iowa, heard oral argument on 

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. On December 26,

2012, the Honorable Judge Margaret L. Lingreen granted summary 

judgment in favor of both David and Donald Smith as to all seven 

counts. Allan appealed the District Court’s ruling granting summary 

judgment to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The Iowa Court of Appeals 

issued a ruling[1]affirming the District Court’s decision to sustain the 

Defendants’ summary judgment motions on August 21, 2013. The 

Iowa Supreme Court denied Allan’s Application for Further Review 

on November 4, 2013. 

The Plaintiff filed a Petition at Law naming David as the 

Defendant in the present case on June 6, 2014. In the Petition, 

Allan alleges the sole claim of Tortious Interference with 

Inheritance. The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 

on July 10, 2014, arguing the present action is precluded by the 

final determinations in the Howard County case based on the 

doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion.

On September 25, 2014, the district court granted David’s motion for 

summary judgement and dismissed Allan’s petition. The court found Allan’s 

claim was barred under the doctrine of issue preclusion because Allan’s prior 

claims for intentional interference with contractual/business relations decided the 

issue of David’s intent in purchasing his parents’ land. Allan now appeals.

We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for the correction of 

errors at law. City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 675 

 

1 Smith v. Smith, No. 13–0063, 2013 WL 4502320, (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2013). 
4

(Iowa 2005). A genuine issue of material fact exists if reasonable minds can 

differ on how an issue should be resolved. Seneca Waste Solutions, Inc. v. 

Sheaffer Mfg. Co., 791 N.W.2d 407, 411 (Iowa 2010). “Whether the elements of 

issue preclusion are satisfied is a question of law.” Grant v. Iowa Dep’t of Human 

Servs., 722 N.W.2d 169, 173 (Iowa 2006). Issue preclusion therefore is 

appropriately adjudicated by summary judgment. See, e.g., Brown v. Monticello 

St. Bank, 360 N.W.2d 81, 84 (Iowa 1984).

Allan claims the issues in his current action are not identical to the issues 

in his previous action and, therefore, the district court erred in granting David’s 

motion for summary judgment. “In general, the doctrine of issue preclusion 

prevents parties to a prior action in which judgment has been entered from 

relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and resolved in the previous 

action.” Hunter v. City of Des Moines, 300 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1981) 

(footnote omitted). In order for issue preclusion to apply, four prerequisites must 

be established:

(1) the issue concluded must be identical; (2) the issue must have 

been raised and litigated in the prior action; (3) the issue must have 

been material and relevant to the disposition of the prior action; and 

(4) the determination made of the issue in the prior action must 

have been necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

After reviewing the record, and the ruling in Allan’s previous case in 

Howard County, we agree with the district court’s application of law and find the 

issue of whether the defendant’s real estate transaction with his father was done 

with tortious intent was raised and decided in the prior action and cannot be 

litigated again in this matter. Consequently, the plaintiff is precluded from 
5

establishing a material element of his claim in this case, and the defendant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment to David. 

AFFIRMED.