Opinion ID: 2226579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Frivolous LawsuitÔÇöHill.

Text: On January 19, 1988, National Child Care, Inc. (National) filed a petition against Janet Dickinson, Robert Dickinson, and Susan Hill in the Iowa District Court for Polk County signed by Ronwin as attorney for the plaintiff. The petition alleged the following: In late February or March 1987, Janet Dickinson (Janet) and Ronwin orally agreed to form a corporation for the purpose of owning and operating child care centers. On March 30, National was incorporated in Iowa. Janet was to be a stockholder, director, and officer of National with responsibility for management of child care centers which National planned to build or acquire. Ronwin was a stockholder, director, and officer of National with responsibility for growth and development of National. He located potential sites, acquired real estate contracts, served as an architect, and negotiated financial agreements. Later, Janet demanded that her share of ownership in National be more than fifty percent. She also demanded that if and when National paid salaries, her salary would be greater than Ronwin's salary. Her demands were rejected by Ronwin, and Janet then severed her connection with National on October 20. In the late summer of 1987 Hill took employment in the child care center operated by Janet. The petition alleged that, while National was attempting to secure rezoning of a tract of land in Windsor Heights for development of a child care center, Hill insinuated herself into the process, casting deliberate disparagement upon Ronwin's efforts . . . in the rezoning process, and encouraged Janet to sever her connection with National and, instead, to join with Hill in the child care business. The petition asked for damages in excess of $2 million against each defendant for lost corporate opportunities and prospective advantages, and asked punitive damage in excess of $2 million against each defendant. The petition was later amended to allege Hill knew of Janet's contractual relationship with National at the time she induced Janet to breach the contract and tortiously interfered with National's prospective business opportunities. The suit was dismissed by the court when National failed to secure new legal counsel. On appeal we held Ronwin was a lawyer-litigant who could appear in court to testify and represent his own interest. National Child Care, Inc. v. Dickinson, 446 N.W.2d 810, 811-12 (Iowa 1989). We remanded for trial. Jury trial commenced on May 20, 1991, with Ronwin and attorney Sporer appearing as counsel for National. Janet and Robert Dickinson were represented by attorney Thompson. Hill was represented by attorney Reed of Legal Aid, a nonprofit corporation. After the plaintiff rested on May 30, Judge Hutchison granted defendants' motions for directed verdicts. The court found Ronwin had no evidence against Hill that in any way supported the claims against her. After the defendants filed a posttrial motion for sanctions under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 80, Ronwin filed a counter motion requesting similar relief. After hearing on the motions, the court found that Ronwin had no evidence to support his claims and that his antagonism spurred him to name Hill in the original petition and to keep her as a defendant until the directed verdict was granted. The court found Ronwin was the promoter, incorporator, sole shareholder, sole officer and director, and attorney for National. It found Ronwin controlled every aspect of National and that he was the moving force in the case. The court concluded sanctions under Rule 80 should include an award of attorney fees for Hill. Counsel for Hill filed a claim for legal services totaling over $11,000. The court awarded sanctions for legal services in the sum of $10,000, jointly and severally, against National and Ronwin personally. Ronwin appealed both the directed verdicts and the award of sanctions. We transferred the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals. Iowa R.App. P. 401. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's directed verdict and the Rule 80 sanctions. Ronwin filed an application for further review. Iowa R.App. P. 402. We denied further review. A disciplinary proceeding was then commenced against Ronwin. After the commission had heard the testimony and reviewed the exhibits, including the trial transcript and Ronwin's 101-page, post-hearing brief, the commission found the evidence is very clear and well substantiated that [Ronwin] had no basis for his lawsuit against Susan Hill. . . . The commission also found Ronwin had filed frivolous lawsuits in both state and federal court against Hill and others.
We find Ronwin filed and participated in a frivolous lawsuit against Hill. The board has proven by a convincing preponderance of evidence that Ronwin's actions violated DR 7-102(A)(1) and that he should be disciplined. Every lawyer has the obligation not to clog the court with frivolous motions or appeals. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 323 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 445, 452 n. 14, 70 L.Ed.2d 509, 520 n. 14 (1981). Ronwin argues Hill's involvement in the planning and zoning meeting in September 1987, and in the settlement conference in December, supports the claim that she interfered with National's contract with Janet and its prospective business advantage. Hill was hired by Janet to prepare meals for children attending her child care center. She applied for the position after her daughter, who was working at the center, told her of the opening. Hill's work experience since 1971 had been as a clerk in a department store. She was elected to the Clive City Council in 1986 and served in that capacity until 1990. As a council member, she had general knowledge about zoning procedures in Clive. She worked as a cook for Janet from August 1987 until June 1988. Hill had no prior experience working in a child care facility or any interest in the child care business. She attended the first fifteen minutes of the planning and zoning meeting on September 19. Ronwin was challenging one of the board member's right to participate. After attending the first part of the meeting, Hill attended a Clive City Council budget meeting. After the budget meeting was over, she returned to the planning and zoning meeting. She observed Ronwin was caustic and threatening in his presentation of the request for rezoning. When Ronwin finished his presentation, Hill spoke on behalf of the request. She told the board she worked for Janet, that Janet ran an excellent day care facility, and that everyone needed a day care facility in their community. The request for rezoning was turned down. Following the meeting, Hill observed Ronwin and Janet in the parking lot discussing the meeting. Ronwin was very angry. Ronwin stated he knew the planning and zoning commission would not grant the rezoning request. They had not granted such a request in the past twenty years. His hope was that the city council would overrule the planning and zoning action and grant his request for rezoning. He appealed the planning and zoning decision but the city council, at its meeting on the evening of October 19, denied his request. Janet severed her connection with National the following day. Two potential investors, Lynn and Hillman, flew to Des Moines to meet with Ronwin and Janet regarding financing. At trial, a letter dated September 25 from Lynn to Janet was admitted as evidence. The letter suggested they would be interested in investing some money but wanted Ronwin's interest in the business reduced. In Ronwin's pleading in federal court he stated: Just prior to the Lynn/Hillman tour of Des Moines, Janet told Ronwin that we've got the money, from the Lynn/Hillman group; but Janet then began to demand more than fifty percent of National and destroyed the opportunities by her action. Hill attended a settlement conference in the Davis law firm office in December 1987. Janet had told Hill that Ronwin was suing her and a number of others, including Hill. Hill attended the settlement meeting because she wanted to know why she was being sued. Her appearance at the meeting could not have precipitated the alleged breach of the agreement on October 20. Hill did not discourage Janet from settling Ronwin's claims against her. It is obvious the refusal to rezone the Windsor Heights property was not the result of Hill's participation at the zoning meeting. In his pleadings in federal district court, Ronwin stated: Hill was not an intended defendant in National's action against Dickinson until after the settlement conference. Ronwin knew Hill's comments to Janet concerning the zoning meeting did not produce the alleged breach of contract, but he named her as defendant as a trial tactic. The naming of Hill as a defendant was an unfounded and frivolous claim.