Opinion
No. 3-636 / 03-0008
Filed November 17, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, David Remley and L. Vern Robinson, Judges.
The Hinkhouses appeal from the district court's ruling granting summary judgment against them. AFFIRMED.
David Scieszinski, Wilton, for appellant.
Thomas Hobart of Meardon, Sueppel Downer, P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Appellants, the Hinkhouses, own certain real estate in Muscatine County, Iowa. On March 20, 1987, the Hinkhouses entered into a lease agreement with City Center Properties (CCP), whereby CCP was to mine limestone from the Hinkhouses' property. In April 1987, the lease was amended to include Center Materials Corporation (CMC) as a lessee. The amendment also included a provision requiring CCP and CMC to pay the Hinkhouses an annual royalty payment of $1500.00.
In March of 1988, CCP and CMC assigned their leases to Wendling Quarries, Inc. Wendling Quarries assumed the rights and obligations of CCP and CMC under the leases and made the royalty payments as required to the Hinkhouses.
In December of 1997, the Hinkhouses filed suit in Muscatine County against Wendling, alleging among other things, that Wendling had breached an implied covenant to develop the property and mineral deposits with reasonable diligence. Summary judgment was granted to Wendling and affirmed by this court. See Hinkhouse v. Wendling Quarries, Co.,No. 00-1441 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001).
On March 19, 2002, the Hinkhouses filed suit in Johnson County against CCP, alleging that CCP had breached an implied covenant to develop the property and mineral deposits with reasonable diligence. The petition made no mention of the assignment of the lease to Wendling or of the prior lawsuit.
CCP first filed a motion to dismiss arguing the statute of limitations had expired. The district court granted CCP's motion as to all of the Hinkhouses' claims for damages with the exception of claims for damages during the period from March 1, 1992 until March 19, 1992. CCP then filed an answer asserting the affirmative defenses of novation and res judicata, relying on the previous lawsuit against Wendling. Soon after, CCP filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on the motion, the district court granted CCP's motion, determining the Hinkhouses' prior lawsuit precluded their current claim against CCP. The Hinkhouses appeal.
We review the grant of summary judgment for errors at law. McCormick v. Meyer, 582 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Iowa 1988).
The district court's ruling on CCP's motion for summary judgment is well-reasoned, and we adopt it as our own. The claims raised by the Hinkhouses in this lawsuit have already been fully and fairly litigated in the prior suit against Wendling. We see no reason the doctrine of res judicata should not apply and affirm the district court's dismissal of the Hinkhouses' claim against CCP.