Opinion ID: 1953696
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Scope of Review of Rescission Claim.

Text: The Hylers' rescission claim was tried in equity. Our review of equity cases is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 4. We do, however, give weight to the findings of fact made by the trial judge. In re Marriage of Full, 255 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1977). We exercise our de novo review only with respect to issues raised and preserved at trial. Id. at 156. Similarly, our review is confined to those propositions relied upon by the appellant for reversal on appeal. Richardson v. Neppl, 182 N.W.2d 384, 390 (Iowa 1970). Our scope of review is important in this case. Autorama states in its brief: Autorama disputes fully and completely the trial court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment Entry. The trial court's findings are not supported by the evidence or the law, and do not reflect judicial balance. This broad, all-encompassing argument is insufficient to identify error as required for our de novo review. The appeal of an equity case does not entitle an appellant to a trial de novo, only review of identified error de novo. Therefore, we do not review each finding of fact and conclusion of law made by the trial court. Rather, we consider only the errors specifically assigned by Autorama and adequately supported by analysis and authority.