Roush v. Mahaska State Bank

Citations: 605 N.W.2d 6; 2000 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 3; 2000 WL 44092Docket: 98-474

Court: Supreme Court of Iowa; January 20, 2000; Iowa; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Shawn Roush appealed a judgment from the Iowa Supreme Court related to a replevin action concerning a 1979 General Motors truck. On May 31, 1995, Mahaska State Bank took possession of the truck under a writ of replevin in an action against Howard Roush, who claimed the truck was part of his business inventory. Shawn, not a party to that action, repeatedly requested the truck and it was eventually returned to him on August 11, 1996. He filed a lawsuit against the Bank and its employee David Shelquist on May 29, 1997, alleging wrongful possession and seeking damages for depreciation, loss of use, punitive damages, and emotional distress. The Bank and Shelquist asserted a cross-claim against Howard for indemnity and moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Shawn could not pursue a replevin action since he had possession of the truck when he filed the suit. The district court granted their motion, concluding that damages for wrongful detention were not available in a replevin action if the petitioner was in possession at the time of filing. The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for further proceedings. It clarified that while replevin is primarily a remedy for regaining possession, it can involve damage claims, but those claims are not the main purpose of a replevin action.

An award of damages in a replevin action is meant to facilitate the recovery of possession of property. Replevin is unavailable when the plaintiff already possesses the property, as established by case law. In this instance, the appellant had possession of the machine at the start of the action, precluding a replevin claim. Although Shawn acknowledged possessing the truck, he argued that replevin was still an option due to the Bank's alleged constructive possession stemming from its security interest. Some jurisdictions allow replevin based on constructive possession, typically when neither party has possession, and a third party holds the property. However, the case does not support constructive possession since the defendant had no control over the diamond taken by the police. The principles governing pleadings indicate that the facts in a petition are accepted as true, and a petition should be read in light of its allegations, not limited by its title. A pleader does not need to specify recovery theories but must provide notice of the incident and the general nature of the claim. In this case, Shawn's action was primarily for damages related to wrongful detention rather than regaining possession of the truck. While replevin was not applicable due to his possession, he sought damages through claims of conversion, negligence, breach of contract, and tortious interference, indicating a combination of claims in his petition.

A replevin action cannot be joined with other claims for recovery under Iowa Code section 643.2. If misjoinder occurs, the appropriate remedy is not dismissal, but rather to docket the misjoined action separately or strike the improperly joined claims, maintaining at least one cause in the original case. The party whose pleading is challenged can withdraw any improperly joined claim before a court ruling, and any remedy for misjoinder must be pursued through a motion. Misjoined actions may still be considered in a single proceeding if both parties agree or if there is no objection. In this instance, the Bank opted not to seek a remedy for misjoinder and instead pursued a judgment on the pleadings. Only the replevin action could be dismissed on these grounds, while other viable claims could proceed. The district court correctly ruled on the replevin claim but erroneously dismissed the entire case, as the petition also stated a viable claim for damages that should not have been dismissed for misjoinder. Therefore, the district court's order is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. 

In dissent, Judge Harris argues that the majority improperly allows claims to survive based on notice pleading while disregarding the explicit prohibition against joining conversion, negligence, or breach-of-contract claims with the replevin action. Harris contends that the replevin action was fundamentally flawed from the start and asserts that if the replevin claim fails, so do the improperly attached claims. Harris believes the district court's dismissal was correct.