Opinion ID: 2181249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's motion to dismiss says:

Text: As shown by the plaintiff's petition, the plaintiff has attempted to foreclose its ` Security Instrument' and the note as signed by this defendant `without recourse' to the plaintiff against Duane D. Sharpless, in bankruptcy, and therefore has made an election of remedies and cannot now bring this suit against this defendant. Plaintiff's petition does say that Sharpless filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy and that plaintiff attempted to foreclose its Security Instrument and then, for the first time, discovered that the 10 acres of land upon which the barn was situated and upon which it was to have a first lien, was not free and clear of other liens and that said Sharpless did not even have good title to the land. To constitute an election of remedies the alternative remedies must be available and inconsistent. We need only determine whether plaintiff's petition discloses such inconsistencies as to constitute an election of remedies as a matter of law. There is nothing in the petition to show as a matter of law that plaintiff had made any such election as to bar an action against defendant. There is nothing to indicate that plaintiff had anything to do with Sharpless' bankruptcy or what happened therein. Plaintiff in substance says that it could not recover by foreclosure. That alone does not, as a matter of law, constitute an inconsistent election of remedies. In Miller v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 251 Iowa 665, 676, 102 N.W.2d 368, 375, we said: Just what acts amount to an election, as between inconsistent remedies, is not always easy to determine. The better rule seems to be that nothing less than the commencement of an action should amount to such an election. In 25 Am.Jur.2d, Election of Remedies, § 22, page 664, this appears: The doctrine of election of remedies presupposes a choice between two or more remedies and a clear understanding of the nature of the remedies between which the election is made. A party is not barred from invoking a proper though inconsistent remedy when, in his first action, he has chosen and pursued, even to an unfavorable judgment, a remedy which was not available to him because either the facts turned out to be different from what he supposed them to be or the law applicable to the facts was found to be other than supposed. If, in truth, the party has no such remedy as he invokes, his action in pursuing it does not constitute an election   . IV. The Sharpless note was assigned by defendant to plaintiff without recourse. Plaintiff's action is not based on the note. It appears to be based on an alleged breach of contract to furnish security. There is nothing in the petition to show that plaintiff has done anything relative to the note inconsistent with the present action.