J. DAVID HODGES d/b/a CHEQUEST REHABILITATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BRENDA BOLINE f/k/a BRENDA LARSEN d/b/a RLJW, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-972 / 07-1037
Filed January 30, 2008
J. DAVID HODGES d/b/a CHEQUEST
REHABILITATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
BRENDA BOLINE f/k/a BRENDA LARSEN
d/b/a RLJW, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Cynthia H.
Danielson, Judge.
Appeal from the adverse district court ruling in a suit for breach of
contract, negligence, and an accounting. AFFIRMED.
Roger Huddle of Weaver & Huddle, Wapello, for appellant.
Timothy Roberts of Anderson, Roberts & Porth, P.L.C., Burlington, for
appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Plaintiff-appellant, J. David Hodges, appeals from the adverse district
court ruling in his suit for breach of contract, negligence, and an accounting
against defendant-appellee, Brenda Boline. He contends the court erred (1) in
not finding the existence of a contract and that defendant breached the contract,
and (2) in denying his demand for an accounting. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Plaintiff operates a physical therapy clinic. Starting in 2001, defendant
provided billing services to file insurance claims and bill patients. Over time,
plaintiff had concerns about the amount of receipts from defendant’s services. In
November of 2005, plaintiff filed suit against defendant seeking damages for
breach of an oral contract and an accounting of defendant’s billing services.
Following a trial to the court, the court found plaintiff failed to prove the
existence of an oral contract, the terms of the contract, a breach by defendant, or
any amount of damages.
It also determined there was no basis for an
accounting because there was no contract.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
We review the judgment of a district court following a bench
trial in a law action for correction of errors at law. The district
court’s findings of fact have the force of a special verdict and are
binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. . . . In
determining whether substantial evidence exists, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s judgment.
If the district court’s findings are ambiguous, they will be construed
to uphold, not defeat, the judgment.
Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Bergstrom, 703 N.W.2d 415, 419 (Iowa 2005) (internal
citations and quotations omitted).
3
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s first claim on appeal is that the district court erred in not finding
the existence of an oral contract and that defendant breached the contract.
Defendant admitted the existence of an oral contract in her answer and her
testimony at trial supported this admission. There is substantial evidence in the
record to support the district court’s determination defendant did not commit a
breach of contract. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s
breach-of-contract claim.
Plaintiff’s second claim is that the court erred in denying the claim for an
accounting.
The district court determined plaintiff was not entitled to an
accounting. There is substantial evidence that defendant provided an accounting
of her services. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of
plaintiff’s claim for an accounting.
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.
