Opinion ID: 2002806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Settlement Between Lala and Sels.

Text: On cross-examination of Lala, the Bank introduced evidence, including a copy of the petition, of a separate law suit commenced by Lala against Sels and others regarding a land contract transaction. In rebuttal, the plaintiff introduced evidence, over the Bank's objection, that the separate law suit had been dismissed and Lala had been paid $75,000 in settlement. The Bank's claim this evidence was irrelevant and that any probative value would be exceeded by its prejudicial effect. The plaintiff contends the Bank had opened the door by offering evidence of the separate law suit. We recognized the doctrine of curative admissibility. This doctrine provides that when one party introduces inadmissible evidence, with or without objection, the trial court may allow the adverse party to offer otherwise inadmissible evidence on the same subject if it is responsive to the evidence in question. See Vine Street Corp. v. City of Council Bluffs, 220 N.W.2d 860, 864 (Iowa 1974); see also E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 57 (3rd ed. 1984). The Bank's introduction of evidence of the unrelated law suit may have suggested the plaintiff was engaged in filing frivolous lawsuits or that he either was not the owner of the stamps, that he did not feel they were valuable, or both. The plaintiff's evidence of the amount of settlement and that he had preserved his claim for loss of the stamps responded to this suggestion. The circumstances of this case illustrates the risks involved when a party offers evidence of questionable relevancy and which may be unfairly prejudicial or may confuse the issues. Once the evidence of the separate lawsuit offered by the defendant was received, the court could allow the plaintiff to introduce additional evidence in response under the curative admissibility rule.