Opinion ID: 2053032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff next contends trial court improperly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment which credited the undisputed advance payments of $3524.32 against the $12,000 verdict returned by the jury.

Text: Prefatorily we note plaintiff failed to resist defendants' motion in any manner whatsoever. While this failure to adequately resist a summary judgment motion is a dangerous course for any plaintiff to follow, it becomes fatal only if the summary judgment movant has met the burden of proof imposed upon it by rule 237, R.C.P. A. T. & T. Co. v. Dubuque Communications, Iowa, 231 N.W.2d 12, 14; Daboll v. Hoden, Iowa, 222 N.W.2d 727, 735; Sherwood v. Nissen, Iowa, 179 N.W.2d 336, 339. Thus we must determine whether trial court was correct in sustaining the motion. This is our first occasion to determine whether a post judgment motion such as made by the defendant was the proper procedure for obtaining credit for advance payments. However, where the issue of offset has been properly plead so that a complete determination of the right to and amount of recovery may be had in the same action and has been separated from the liability issue to avoid prejudice under rule 186, R.C.P., we believe trial court should attempt to completely resolve the case and enter an appropriate judgment accordingly. Folkner v. Collins, 249 Iowa 1141, 1144, 1145, 91 N.W.2d 545, 547; Hedinger v. Herweh, 239 Iowa 1146, 1147, 1148, 34 N.W.2d 202, 203. Several jurisdictions have now held that the absence of a specific advance payment statute on post judgment motions of this nature does not bar a trial court from incorporating the partial satisfaction in its judgment; to do otherwise permits a plaintiff to recover twice for the same damages. Edwards v. Passarelli Bros. Automotive Service, Inc., 8 Ohio St.2d 6, 37 O.Ops.2d 298, 221 N.E.2d 708, 25 A.L.R.3d 1087; Byrd v. Stuart, 224 Tenn. 46, 450 S.W.2d 11. The Tennessee Supreme Court in adopting this position stated: The facts in that case [ Edwards v. Passarelli Bros . ] were substantially identical to those in the instant case. There, the defendant, after judgment against him in the trial court, asked by motion for a credit toward satisfaction of the judgment. The Ohio Supreme Court, after noting that the defendant had no right to assert, in connection with the advance payment, until after judgment, and that furthermore a previous introduction of the advancement into the cause would insert `extraneous insurance matters [which] would interfere with the trial and rules of evidence,' held that a post judgment motion such as made by the defendant was the proper procedure for obtaining credit for the advancement. There apparently is no specific statute in Ohio on post judgment motions of this nature and there is no statute in Tennessee. Certainly there can be no doubt that the procedure approved in Ohio is much to be preferred to the use of a separate action in equity to accomplish the same result. So far as we are aware, such post judgment motions are unknown in the practice and procedure of this state. We strongly feel, however, that matters such as this should be resolved in the suit at law. We conceive of no reason why, after the jury has returned its verdict and been discharged, and any motions for new trial and remittitur or additur have been disposed of, the defendant could not move the court to accept proof of the advance payment. Should the trial judge then find the advancement to have been made, he could incorporate the partial satisfaction in his judgment. 224 Tenn., pages 53, 54, 450 S.W.2d, pages 14, 15. Also see Boles v. Steel, 48 Ala.App. 268, 271, 264 So.2d 191, 193; Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 5 Ill.App.3d 450, 456, 457, 283 N.E.2d 517, 521, 522; Annot., 25 A.L.R.3d 1091. We note that recently Indiana has statutorily provided for advance payments in personal injury and property damage cases. Indiana Code (1971), section 34-3-2.5-1, et seq.; Monroe v. Strecker, Ind.App., 355 N.E.2d 418. The purpose of that statute and cases permitting advance payments was well summarized by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 1969 in Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Otis, 145 Ind. App. 159, 179, 180, 250 N.E.2d 378, 392 as follows: [T]here are good policy reasons to support the advance payment concept, not the least of which is the plain economic need of a severely injured person and the delays in our court system. We believe the advance payment concept should be encouraged for these reasons and such sum paid credited against any final judgment. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.