Court Opinion

ID: 9658434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:59:52.947077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:55.205106
License: Public Domain

DONIELSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party shows that there *544exist no material issues of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In re Eickman Estate, 291 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Iowa 1980); Anita Valley, Inc. v. Bingley, 279 N.W.2d 37, 40 (Iowa 1979); City of Eldridge v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 270 N.W.2d 637, 640 (Iowa 1978). The burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact is on the party moving for summary judgment. Schulte v. Mauer, 219 N.W.2d 496, 500 (Iowa 1974). In considering such a motion, a court is required to examine the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion to determine whether the movant has met his burden. Anita Valley, Inc., 279 N.W.2d at 40; Iowa Department of Transportation v. Read, 262 N.W.2d 533, 536 (Iowa 1978). If reasonable persons could draw different inferences and conclusions from the undisputed facts, summary judgment is not proper. In re Eickman Estate, 291 N.W.2d at 311-312; Daboll v. Hoden, 222 N.W.2d 727, 733-34 (Iowa 1974). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court and this court on review must examine the entire record before it, including pleadings, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and testimony. Meylor v. Brown, 281 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Iowa 1979); Frohwein v. Haesemeyer, 264 N.W.2d 792, 795-96 (Iowa 1978); Brody v. Ruby, 267 N.W.2d 902, 904 (Iowa 1978). If, under these principles, an examination of the record discloses any allegations of ultimate fact which, if found true, would constitute a good defense to the action, a motion for summary judgment must be overruled. Schulte, 219 N.W.2d at 500.
The trial court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment. Plaintiff cannot enforce against defendant a security interest in the farm property, because he waived the interest at the auction. See Lisbon Bank and Trust Co. v. Murray, 206 N.W.2d 96, 97 (Iowa 1973); § 554.9306(2), The Code 1979. Plaintiff’s security interest would continue in the proceeds of the sale. Section 554.-9306(1), The Code 1979, defines “proceeds” as follows:
“Proceeds” include whatever is received upon the sale, exchange, collection or other disposition of collateral or proceeds. Insurance payable by reason of loss or damage to the collateral is proceeds, except to the extent that it is payable to a person other than a party to the security agreement. Money, checks, deposit accounts and the like are “cash proceeds.” All other proceeds are “noncash proceeds.”
Plaintiff cannot enforce its rights against defendant in proceeds of secured property unless defendant has the proceeds. I believe there remains a material issue of fact as to who has the proceeds in this case. Plaintiff has not proven that defendant has the proceeds. Plaintiff has only proved that defendant has the farm equipment which prior to the sale was collateral and that defendant stopped payment on the check given at the sale. Defendant asserts that there was an agreement between himself and both plaintiff and Laws Inc. to allow defendant to setoff against the debt Laws owed defendant. Plaintiff denies this agreement was ever entered. Thus the existence or non-existence of this agreement is material to the issue of who, if anyone, has the proceeds of the farm equipment. Even if the agreement did exist, the record leaves considerable doubt as to whether defendant satisfactorily compensated Laws for the farm equipment. If the agreement did exist and if defendant’s setoff was adequate compensation then Laws may have proceeds in the form of a reduction in the total amount of debt he owes to all his creditors. This would then in theory free up other assets to satisfy Laws’ debt to plaintiff.
I would reverse and remand the case to determine who, if anyone, really has the proceeds of the sale.