Opinion
No. 5-868 / 05-0351
Filed November 23, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Ackley, Judge.
The defendants appeal from the district court's order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its petition for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. AFFIRMED.
Joseph J. Bitter of Bitter Law Offices, Dubuque, for appellants.
Gary K. Norby of Kane, Norby Reddick, P.C., Dubuque, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
The defendants appeal from the district court's order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its petition for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. The defendants claim summary judgment was not appropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Although equity cases are generally reviewed de novo, review of a case in equity resulting in summary judgment is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; Keokuk Junction Ry. Co. v. IES Indus., Inc., 618 N.W.2d 352, 355 (Iowa 2000).
Summary judgment is properly granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3). A factual issue is material only if the dispute is over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable law. Lewis v. State ex rel. Miler, 646 N.W.2d 121, 124 (Iowa Ct.App. 2002).
The defendants claim there is a factual dispute as to whether their signatures on the deed of trust executed on the property at issue were obtained by fraud or deception. Specifically, the defendants contend they did not read the documents signed, that they were never told what the documents were, that they would not have signed the documents had they known their purpose, and that they were told the documents were to renew the due date on their loan. However, we conclude these facts, even if disputed, are not material to the case.
Our law has long held that in the absence of fraud or mistake, a person is bound by their signature on a contract. Gouge v. McNamara, 586 N.W.2d 710, 713 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Ignorance of the contents of an instrument does not ordinarily affect the liability of one who signs it. Id. Rather, a person is bound by a contract signed but not read unless the signing party was dissuaded from reading it by some trick or artifice practiced by the opposite party. Id. at 714. Also, if one party to a contract has made a mistake and the other has engaged in inequitable conduct so that the document does not accurately express the true intentions of the party, reformation can result. Id.
Even accepting as true the defendants' claim the bank officers told them the document they signed was "for us to renew the due date on our loan" and/or "to extend or loan," there is no evidence the plaintiff dissuaded the defendants from reading the deed of trust in order to discern its true nature. In fact, the plaintiff granted the defendants six additional days to consider signing the document, and urged them to discuss it with their attorney. Also, there was clearly no mistake in regard to the intent embodied by the document. Immediately above the lines signed by the defendants, the contract read:
I UNDERSTAND THAT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY IS IN MANY CASES PROTECTED FROM THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS AND EXEMPT FROM JUDICIAL SALE: AND THAT BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT I VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP MY RIGHT TO THIS PROTECTION FOR THIS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS BASED UPON THIS CONTRACT.
Because the facts in dispute alleged by defendants are not material, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, we affirm.