DAY STAR JEWELRY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. GREG HEATH, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-486 / 08-1633
Filed July 22, 2009
DAY STAR JEWELRY, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
GREG HEATH,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Thomas N.
Bower and Richard D. Stochl, Judges.
Creditor appeals summary judgment awarded to debtor.
REVERSED
AND REMANDED.
Steven K. Daniels and Erin Patrick Lyons of Dutton, Braun, Staack &
Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
Jay P. Roberts of Roberts, Stevens & Prendergast, P.L.C., Waterloo, for
appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
On December 6, 2007, Day Star Jewelry, Inc. filed a petition alleging Greg
Heath had failed to pay $13,816.84 for an engagement ring. On January 15,
2008, Day Star filed an amended petition alleging Heath promised to pay the
debt when he received an expected settlement and also promised to pay if Day
Star would not file a lawsuit. Day Star alleged Heath breached these subsequent
oral contracts.
Day Star’s amended petition also included allegations of
equitable estoppel and unjust enrichment.
Heath moved for summary judgment and his motion was granted on
September 9, 2008. The court ruled Day Star failed to bring suit within five years
of the original oral contract and, therefore, had not met the applicable statute of
limitations. Day Star appeals.
We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for errors at law.
Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115, 121 (Iowa 2001).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the entire record demonstrates that
no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Stevens v. Iowa Newspapers, Inc., 728 N.W.2d
823, 827 (Iowa 2007). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Id.
Applying these principles, we conclude summary judgment is not
appropriate.
There is a factual dispute as to whether a subsequent oral
3
agreement was reached between the parties regarding payment of the
outstanding debt.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
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.
