Opinion ID: 1640631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Directed verdict for Loren Meggison and Meggison Real Estate, Inc.

Text: Trial court directed verdicts in favor of Meggison and his company on the fraudulent misrepresentation count. Kristerin assigns this as error. We disagree. In reviewing the court's rulings, we examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the directed verdict motions. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(2). Kristerin had the burden to show the five elements of fraud by a preponderance of clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. Beeck v. Aquaslide `N' Dive Corp., 350 N.W.2d 149, 155 (Iowa 1984). Those elements are: (1) a material misrepresentation, (2) made knowingly (scienter), (3) with intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, (4) upon which the plaintiff justifiably relies, (5) with damages. Id. (quoting Beeck v. Kapalis, 302 N.W.2d 90, 94 (Iowa 1981)). We agree with trial court's conclusion, as did the court of appeals, that the record does not contain substantial evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found by a preponderance of the clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that KJ justifiably relied upon Meggison's alleged representations. KJ does not dispute it confirmed Meggison's representations with partner Kenneth L. Grandquist, a representative of the principal, Granson. Nor has Kristerin ever contended Meggison made representations other than those also made by Grandquist. In Riley v. Bell, 120 Iowa 618, 95 N.W. 170 (1903), we wrote: [A]n agent is not chargeable with personal responsibility where it appears that he has acted in good faith within the general scope of his authority, and in making representations has acted simply as the mouthpiece of his principal .... Id. at 623, 95 N.W. at 171 (emphasis added). Here there is no real dispute that Meggison was acting as a mouthpiece for his principal, Granson. Even Netteland conceded at trial it was not necessary to rely on Meggison's representations after Kenneth L. Grandquist made the same representations. Trial court committed no error in directing these verdicts for the above reason, as well as the reasons discussed in the division that follows.