 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rick v. Sprague12/9/2005
e motion to dismiss, and proceed to resolve the issues raised.
That brings us to the issue whether there was an acceptance of the offer to confess judgment.
V. Offer to Confess Judgment
Iowa Code chapter 677 governs offers to confess judgment. Iowa Code sections 677.7 and 677.8 are the pertinent sections. Section 677.7 specifies how and when the defendant makes the offer after an action has been brought:
The defendant in an action for the recovery of money only may, at any time after service of notice and before the trial, serve upon the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney an offer in writing to allow judgment to be taken against the defendant for a specified sum with costs.
Iowa Code § 677.7 (2003).
Section 677.8 specifies how and when the plaintiff may accept the offer:
If the plaintiff accepts the offer, and gives notice thereof to the defendant or the defendant's attorney within five days after the offer is made, the offer, and an affidavit that the notice of acceptance was delivered in the time limited, may be filed by the plaintiff, or the defendant may file the acceptance with a copy of the offer, verified by affidavit; and in either case a minute of the offer and acceptance shall be entered upon the judge's calendar, and judgment shall be rendered by the court accordingly.
Id. § 677.8.
No one disputes that the procedures in both sections were followed. The dispute centers on the meaning of the offer to confess judgment, which determines whether there was an acceptance of the offer, matters we next address.
Sprague contends that his offer to confess judgment is clear and unambiguous. The $5000 was the total sum offered to both plaintiffs and was not divisible.
Offers to confess judgments are like offers of settlement, Hughes v. Burlington N. R.R., 545 N.W.2d 318, 320 (Iowa 1996), and " ettlement agreements are essentially contracts," Shirley v. Pothast, 508 N.W.2d 712, 715 (Iowa 1993). Because we look to contract principles when interpreting settlement agreements, Waechter v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 454 N.W.2d 565, 568 (Iowa 1990), we also look to contract principles when we interpret offers to confess judgment. We review the district court's interpretation of the offer at law. Ellefson v. Centech Corp., 606 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Iowa 2000) (stating contract interpretation is a legal issue unless the interpretation depends on extrinsic evidence).
Contract interpretation determines the meaning of contract words. Fausel v. JRJ Enters., Inc., 603 N.W.2d 612, 618 (Iowa 1999). The primary focus of settlement agreement interpretation is ascertaining the parties' intention at the time they executed the agreement. Waechter, 454 N.W.2d at 568.
Interpretation involves a two-step process. First, from the words chosen, a court must determine "what meanings are reasonably possible." In so doing, the court determines whether a disputed term is ambiguous. A term is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree about its meaning. A term is ambiguous if, "after all pertinent rules of interpretation have been considered," "a genuine uncertainty exists concerning which of two reasonable interpretations is proper."
Walsh v. Nelson, 622 N.W.2d 499, 503 (Iowa 2001) (citations omitted).
Once the court identifies an ambiguity, it then must "'choos among possible meanings.'" Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). If extrinsic evidence is necessary to resolve the meaning of ambiguous language, "a question of interpretation arises which is reserved for the trier of fact." Id. However,
ny determination of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|