Opinion ID: 2178484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The bank's reliance.

Text: The trial court found that the bank did not extend credit on the faith of the settlement agreement. The only evidence found to be supportive of the bank's reliance on the document was the testimony of its vice president, Mr. Stinson, that he believed Gerhart still had $50,000 coming under the agreement. Contrary evidence, however, showed that the agreement itself specifically provided that Gerhart has been paid for all labor and materials performed and furnished on the above named project. . . and it is further agreed that no further money is to be paid [to Gerhart]. . .. The trial court also found strong circumstantial evidence indicated a lack of reliance by the bank: When Mr. Stinson [the banker] made his inquiries of the IRS and the Omaha bank regarding Check No. 106 [which had been raised from $4,822.40 to $54,822.40] . . and learned of the material misrepresentations which Gerhart had made to him, all doubt should have been erased as to the actual amount of the Maplenol settlement. If after that Stinson chose to believe Gerhart still had $50,000 coming from Maplenol, it could only have been because Gerhart convinced him of that through his subsequent misrepresentations, rather than because of the termination agreement. This court declines to believe that any reasonable person, much less a banker of Mr. Stinson's stature and experience, could possibly have given any credence to the altered figures in the termination agreement, given the irreconcilable conflicts and contradictions in the information he had available to him after learning what he learned from the IRS and the Omaha bank. Substantial evidence supports that conclusion and it is therefore binding upon this court on appeal. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(1).