JOLENE CLAUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RONALD DEAN WOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-145 / 06-0934
Filed April 25, 2007
JOLENE CLAUS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RONALD DEAN WOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, David L. Baker,
Judge.
Ronald Wood appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Jolene
Claus in a breach of warranty action. AFFIRMED.
John C. Wagner of John C. Wagner Law Offices, P.C., Amana, for
appellant.
Matthew G. McQuillen of Remley, Willems, McQuillen & Voss, L.L.P.,
Anamosa, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.,
takes no part.
Baker, J.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Ronald Dean Wood built and sold a home to Jolene Claus. The home
was installed with a conventional gravel septic system rather than a sand filter
system.
After taking possession, Claus noticed a wet area in her yard. The water
in the area was green or brownish and had a “sewage-type smell.”
Claus complained to county officials.
In response, the Jones County
Board of Health issued Wood a civil citation for “failure to install an approved onsite wastewater system.” Following a hearing, the district court ruled in favor of
Wood.
Claus subsequently sued Wood, alleging he breached express and
implied warranties. The district court rejected the express warranty claim but
entered a $9185 judgment in favor of Claus on the implied warranty claim.
On appeal, Wood contends (1) Claus failed to prove “there was any defect
in her septic system” and (2) the doctrine of issue preclusion barred re-litigation.
1. At the close of Claus’s case, Wood moved for a directed verdict on the implied
warranty claim, arguing that the seepage of sewage resulted from erosion rather
than the installation of the septic system. The district court denied the motion.
Wood argues this was error.
The primary standard we apply in reviewing this argument is the
substantial evidence standard. Stover v. Lakeland Square Owners Ass’n, 434
N.W.2d 866, 873 (Iowa 1989).
“[W]here no substantial evidence exists to
support each element of a plaintiff’s claim, directed verdict . . . is proper.” Id.
The record contains substantial evidence to support the key contested element of
3
Claus’s implied warranty claim: “[T]hat when sold, the house was not reasonably
fit for its intended purpose or had not been constructed in a good and
workmanlike manner.” Kirk v. Ridgway, 373 N.W.2d 491, 496 (Iowa 1985).
A Jones County environmental health specialist, Sue Ellen Hosch, testified
she reviewed the results of soil percolation tests performed on the Claus property
before the septic system was installed. She recommended a sand filter system,
“[b]ased on the soil conditions, the clay content, and the variability of the perk
rate.” Wood installed a gravel system instead. After Claus noticed effluent in her
yard, Hosch inspected the property and conducted a water analysis. The water
sample contained high levels of fecal matter. Hosch concluded it was “pretty
much straight sewage.”
In addition to this testimony, there was evidence from the owner of a
septic services company with twenty-eight years of experience in the septic
business. He testified that the Claus property was not suitable for the installation
of a conventional septic system. While he conceded that conventional septic
systems could fail due to erosion across the sewer lines, reasonable minds could
disagree on whether the sewage runoff was caused by this erosion factor or the
unsuitability of a conventional system for this property. Stover, 434 N.W.2d at
873 (“Where reasonable minds could differ on an issue, directed verdict is
improper and the case must go to the jury.”).
Cf. Semler v. Knowling, 325
N.W.2d 395, 399 (Iowa 1982) (“It is not necessary for plaintiff to prove the
specific defect which caused the sewer to malfunction. The ‘defect’ was the
failure of the installation to perform the particular purpose.”).
4
We conclude the district court did not err in denying Wood’s motion for
directed verdict.
2. Prior to trial, Wood filed a “motion in favor of res judicata.” He sought to
preclude “any litigation of the issue of whether or not the on-site waste water
system was approved, thereby prohibiting . . . Claus from providing or asserting
that . . . Wood, did fail to install an approved on-site waste water system.” The
district court denied the motion, reasoning that “the issues are not identical and
therefore . . . there is no preclusive effect.” See Treimer v. Lett, 587 N.W.2d 622,
625 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (“The issue must be identical in the two actions.”).
We discern no error in this ruling. Wood framed the issue in the first
action as “whether it was appropriate for [him] to install a traditional septic system
on the real estate at issue without a permit.” In contrast, Wood characterized the
issue in the present action as whether “Ms. Claus proved by the preponderance
of the evidence that there was any defect in her septic system.” These issues
are not identical. Therefore, application of the issue preclusion doctrine was
foreclosed.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
