Court Opinion

ID: 9389964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:04:57.944377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.680030
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                      No. 22-0394
                                  Filed April 26, 2023

CAEDEN TINKLENBERG,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

EUROSPORT MOTORS, INC.,
     Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal    from   the      Iowa   District   Court   for   Black   Hawk   County,

Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.

      Caeden Tinklenberg appeals the denial of his combined motion for

judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial. AFFIRMED.

      Jason Springer of Springer Law Firm, PLLC, Madrid, for appellant.

      Jordan M. Talsma of Beecher, Field, Walker, Morris, Hoffman & Johnson,

P.C., Waterloo, for appellee.

      Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.
                                          2

AHLERS, Judge.

       Caeden Tinklenberg purchased a used vehicle from Eurosport Motors, Inc.

(Eurosport). Shortly thereafter, the vehicle began experiencing engine problems.

When Tinklenberg inquired about replacing the engine, the vehicle manufacturer

reported that the vehicle identification number did not match the engine serial

number—meaning the engine in the vehicle sold to Tinklenberg was not the

vehicle’s original engine.    Tinklenberg brought this action against Eurosport

alleging negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation. Eurosport

disclosed in discovery that it had replaced the vehicle’s engine prior to its sale.

       The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Eurosport on

both counts. Tinklenberg filed a combined motion for judgment notwithstanding

the verdict (JNOV) and new trial. The district court issued a written ruling denying

the motion following a hearing.1 Specifically, the JNOV part of the ruling addressed

the negligent-misrepresentation claim, and the new-trial part of the ruling

addressed the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim.        Tinklenberg never filed a

motion under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.904 requesting the court to

expand its new-trial ruling to address his negligent-misrepresentation claim. See

Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2) (permitting a party to request enlargement of a judgment

or decree issued following a bench trial), (3) (permitting a motion under rule

1.904(2) to seek enlargement of “another court order, ruling, judgment, or decree”).

Instead, Tinklenberg filed this appeal.

1The hearing was reported. However, the combined certificate shows a transcript
of that hearing was never ordered, so we do not have it.
                                          3

         Tinklenberg’s appellate brief heading argues, “The trial court erred in

denying [his] motion for [JNOV] and motion for new trial.” Although the substance

of Tinklenberg’s brief focuses on the motion for new trial, we first address his

motion for JNOV. A motion for JNOV “must stand on grounds raised in [a] directed

verdict motion.” Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477, 493 (Iowa 2011) (citation

omitted). Appellate review is likewise “limited to those grounds raised in the

directed verdict motion.” Id. at 494 (citation omitted). Tinklenberg never sought a

directed verdict upon which to base a motion for JNOV, so the court could not grant

his motion for JNOV. We are also unable to provide any relief via JNOV.

         Turning to Tinklenberg’s arguments related to the motion for new trial, he

again runs into a procedural impediment. As noted, the district court’s ruling on

Tinklenberg’s motion for new trial only addressed the fraudulent-misrepresentation

claim.    However, Tinklenberg’s appellate brief only discusses the negligent-

misrepresentation claim. The district court never made a ruling on the motion for

new trial with respect to negligent misrepresentation, and Tinklenberg never

sought an expanded ruling. So he has not preserved error, and we have nothing

to review.2 See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

         As Tinklenberg fails to present us with any claim preserved for our review,

we affirm.

         AFFIRMED.

2 Even when no party challenges error preservation, we may raise the issue on our
own. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa
2000) (“[T]his court will consider on appeal whether error was preserved despite
the opposing party’s omission in not raising this issue at trial or on appeal.”).