Opinion ID: 1647495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Cross Appeal: Suretyship.

Text: Ferral and Brenda claim the acts of the bank impaired their rights as sureties to discharge or reduce their obligation to the bank. This is the only issue raised in the cross-appeal. We find this issue was not preserved for appellate review. Although the district court mentioned suretyship in its list of legal questions considered, the district court did not address the issue of suretyship in its order and decree. Neither party filed a motion to enlarge or amend the order and decree to address the issue. See Iowa R.Civ.Proc. 179(b). As we stated in Estate of Grossman v. McCreary: Such a motion is a condition precedent for preserving the skipped issues for appellate review ... It is well settled that a rule 179(b) motion is essential to preservation of error when a trial court fails to resolve an issue, claim, defense, or legal theory properly submitted to it for adjudication. 373 N.W.2d 113, 114 (Iowa 1985). Accordingly, we need not review the issue in the cross-appeal.