Opinion ID: 1711488
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did Sherry Violate a Duty to Mary Ann Under Crabtree's Power of Attorney?

Text: On appeal Mary Ann argues that Sherry owed her a duty under the power of attorney much like the rights of a donee beneficiary under the doctrine of third party beneficiaries. This argument was not made to the district court. Although the district court ruled Sherry's fiduciary duty was to Mr. Crabtree, not Mary Ann Crabtree, this statement was made in the context of discussing whether Sherry breached her fiduciary duty by making a gift to herself. There is nothing in the record to indicate the district court had a third-party-beneficiary theory in mind when this statement was made. At trial, Mary Ann simply claimed Sherry engaged in self-dealing as [a] fiduciary and effectively made a gift to herself. No mention was made to the district court of the theory of third party beneficiary. We conclude the issue of third party beneficiary was not raised in the trial court. See Kanzmeier v. McCoppin, 398 N.W.2d 826, 829-30 (Iowa 1987) (trial court ... did not mention the concept of third party beneficiary, nor did either party advance this theory in its trial brief). Because Mary Ann did not present this issue at trial, it is waived. See Hagarty v. Dysart-Geneseo Community Sch. Dist., 282 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Iowa 1979) (we cannot permit her claim to be tried here on a theory not urged in the trial court); General Expressways, Inc. v. Iowa Reciprocity Bd., 163 N.W.2d 413, 417 (Iowa 1968) (we only consider issues argued to and considered by the trial court). AFFIRMED.