Opinion ID: 1274702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Extent of the Easement

Text: Johnsons also claim the trial court erred in the nature and extent of the easement. Specifically, Johnsons contend, even if we find Kasters established an easement, the easement granted by the trial court is invalid because it substantially increased the burden on the Johnson property. However, the trial court never ruled on the issue of the expansion of the easement. Johnsons raise this issue for the first time on appeal. When the court fails to resolve an issue, a request to enlarge or amend the findings is necessary to preserve error. Iowa R. Civ. P. 179(b) (1999); [2] Lawrence v. Grinde, 534 N.W.2d 414, 418 (Iowa 1995). The purpose of a rule 179(b) motion is to advise counsel and the appellate court of the basis of the trial court's decision in order that counsel may direct his attack upon specific adverse findings or rulings in the event of an appeal. Ritz v. Wapello County Bd. of Supervisors, 595 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Iowa 1999) (quoting City of Fort Dodge v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 562 N.W.2d 438, 440 (Iowa Ct. App.1997)). Since Johnsons did not move under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b) for an enlargement or modification of the trial court's conclusions, we find error was not preserved and decline to address the issue on appeal. AFFIRMED. All justices concur except, LARSON, J., who takes no part.