Opinion ID: 1401721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver or Modification

Text: GPR asserts sufficient evidence supported a finding UCL waived or modified the PPP, precluding summary judgment, because [t]he issue of waiver is generally one of fact for the jury, in particular where acts and conduct are relied upon as the basis for the waiver. (quoting Scheetz v. IMT Ins. Co., 324 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Iowa 1982) (en banc) (citing Continental Casualty Co. v. G.R. Kinney Co., Iowa, 258 Iowa 658, 140 N.W.2d 129, 130 (Iowa 1966))). [4] Waiver is defined as `the voluntary or intentional relinquishment of a known right.' Scheetz, 324 N.W.2d at 304 (quoting Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Fields, 317 N.W.2d 176, 186 (Iowa 1982)). The essential elements of a waiver are the existence of a right, knowledge, actual or constructive, and an intention to relinquish such right. Id. (citing Perkins v. City National Bank of Clinton, 253 Iowa 922, 114 N.W.2d 45, 52 (1962)). Jackson, GPR's President and CEO, admits the only time waiver of the PPP was ever discussed was in his July 1, 1997 letter to UCL. UCL and GPR never negotiated specifically regarding waiver of the PPP. The PPP was not mentioned in UCL's refinancing offer, was not specified by GPR in its counteroffer, and was not addressed in the ultimate written agreement between GPR and UCLa written agreement explicitly providing, Except as expressly modified herein, all of the terms of the Note, the Mortgage and the other Loan Documents remain in full force and effect. Where UCL never voluntarily or intentionally relinquished its right to the PPP, no reasonable jury could find UCL waived the PPP. Where UCL never entered discussions regarding modification of the PPP, no reasonable jury could find the PPP was modified either by oral [5] or written agreement.