Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 18-1537

For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here

Dee v. Burgett

Mike Dee, Kriss Dee, Charles Depena, Steve Feltz, James Fogt, Marc Gillotti, Matt Helgeson, Kari Helgeson, Jason Hellickson, Susan Hellickson, Brad King, Jill King, Suresh Kota, Bhagyalakshmi Arvapalli, David Lacey, Sarah Lacey, Bryan Lamb, Theodore J. Lare, Kerstin Levy, Jeff Lorenzen, Scott Lukan, Kara Lukan, Theresa A. McConeghey, Alan R. McConeghey, Brian Mehlhaus, Laura Mehlhaus, Mark Meyer, Ann Meyer, Brent Mithcell, Nagendra Myneni, Timothy Neugent, Gerard Neugent, Kaaren Olesen, Michael Riggs, John Rizzi, Joanne Rizzi, Tim Stephany, Tonto Holdings, LLC, Scott Vance, Harv Vander Weide, Lois Vander Weide, Ravi Vemulapalli, Rani Makkapati, Buddemeyer Investments, LLC, Michael L. McKinney, Todd Milbourn, Elizabeth Milbourn, Magnolia Partners, LLC, Mark Slocomb Trustee, Michael Malloy, Joan Malloy, Teresa Jenson, Ron King, Nick Collison, Luc De Temmerman and Ann-Marie Uyttersprot, Plaintiffs-Appellants


Seth Burgett, Defendant-Appellee

Attorney for Appellant

Thomas D. Story and Sean P. Moore

Attorney for Appellee

Thomas D. Hanson, Theodore W. Craig, Laura C. Wasson, and William M. Reasoner

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Jun 03, 2020

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (20 pages)

            Plaintiffs appeal the district court decision granting a directed verdict to defendant on their claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court found there was sufficient evidence to present a claim of breach of fiduciary duty to the jury except for the element of damages.  There was sufficient evidence of damages as to some of the plaintiffs, and the court erred by granting a directed verdict on breach of fiduciary duty as to them.  We reverse and remand on this issue.  We affirm the evidentiary ruling of the trial court as to a proceeds model.  For the other claims—breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud—the court did not err in granting a directed verdict.  We affirm the district court on these claims.


© 2022 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.