John Davis v. Christine Frank, Tristan Frank, and Does 1-30

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 23-0059 Filed February 21, 2024 JOHN DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CHRISTINE FRANK, TRISTAN FRANK, and DOES 1-30, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge. John Davis appeals the dismissal of his claims related to the transfer of real and personal property. AFFIRMED. John Davis, Sacramento, California, self-represented appellant. Brandon R. Underwood and Sara B. Golwitzer of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2 BOWER, Chief Judge. John Davis appeals the district court’s dismissal of his various claims against Christine Frank, Tristan Frank, and Does 1–30,1 including fraudulent transfer of real property; imposition of constructive trust; breach of oral contract; fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; violation of Iowa Code section 489.409(1) (2022); civil conspiracy to defraud; three claims of trespass to personal property; and two claims of conversion of personal property. Upon our review, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings John Davis and Christine Frank began a romantic relationship in the late 1980s. They later decided to pursue several business relationships as well. Between 1992 and 2013 both parties resided in Des Moines together. In 1998, Davis and Frank filed paperwork forming The Parsonage, L.L.C. The sole asset of the L.L.C was a house in Des Moines (Parsonage). As of 2013, the parties were living in California. In September 2014, Davis was arrested for various federal drug offenses and money laundering charges. To secure his release, David transferred the Parsonage to Frank as collateral. He pleaded guilty to the federal drug charges in 2016 and was paroled in 2020, when he was granted compassionate release due to his health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Davis and Frank also owned another corporation known as Data International, Inc. (Data). In compliance with a May 2008 consent judgment, Davis 1 Davis has filed no amendment naming these parties or describing their involvement in his claims. 3 transferred his interest in Data to Frank. Davis claims Data owned two Lexus vehicles, purchased in 2005, which were unlawfully converted to Frank in 2016. In 2016, Davis sued Frank in district court alleging fraudulent transfer of the Parsonage. He voluntarily dismissed the suit. In 2020, Davis again sued Frank, alleging similar claims. He voluntarily dismissed that suit as well. Davis brought the current case in 2022, including alleged fraudulent transfer of real property; imposition of constructive trust; breach of oral contract; fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; violation of Iowa Code section 489.409(1); civil conspiracy to defraud; three claims of trespass to personal property; and two claims of conversion of personal property. Several claims appeared to be related to the same 2014 transfer of the Parsonage raised in the two previous suits. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding Davis’s claims were in violation of the statute of limitations and Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.943. Davis appeals. II. Standard of Review “We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for the correction of errors at law.” Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 244, 253 (Iowa 2012) (citation omitted). We will affirm a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss if the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See King v. State, 818 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2012). “For purposes of reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the petition’s well-pleaded factual allegations, but not its legal conclusions.” Shumate v. Drake Univ., 846 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Iowa 2014). 4 III. Error Preservation: Equitable Estoppel To preserve error on an issue, not only must a party make the argument, but the district court must also rule on the issue. See, e.g., Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Iowa 1998). “When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion [pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904] requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). A rule 1.904 motion is considered timely if made within fifteen days after the filing of the judgment, order, or decree to which it is directed. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(3). Davis argues the district court erred when it disregarded his arguments related to equitable estoppel. Davis claims although he titled a section of his motion in opposition to the motion to dismiss “The Doctrine of Equitable Tolling,” he was talking about the doctrine of equitable estoppel, and the district court erred in not ruling on whether equitable estoppel applied. Davis did not file a motion requesting a ruling on this issue in district court. Because Davis failed to file such a motion regarding the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, error was not preserved, and we cannot consider the issue on appeal. 2 IV. Application of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.943 Davis also claims the district court inaccurately applied Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.943 to dismiss his case. The rule provides as follows: 2 Frank has asked the court to address arguments made at the district court concerning the application of the statute of limitations, the discovery doctrine, and equitable tolling. We decline to do so as the Davis has not raised those issues in his appeal. 5 A dismissal under this rule [is to be without prejudice] . . . but if made by any party who has previously dismissed an action against the same defendant, in any court of any state or of the United States, including or based on the same cause, such dismissal shall operate as an adjudication against that party on the merits, unless otherwise noted by the court, in the interest of justice. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.943. Davis argues his claims related to the 2014 transfer of the Parsonage are not subject to the rule because his claims in the 2016 and 2020 petitions were slightly different in that they brought different claims. Both actions brought by Davis were against the same person(s) and arose from the same factual circumstances. The district court stated: [Davis] filed a petition against [Frank] on September 24, 2016 in Polk County . . . . This petition was dismissed on January 23, 2018. He filed another petition against [Frank], also on September 24, 2016, in Polk County . . . which was later consolidated . . . on July 3, 2017 . . . . On November 3, 2020, [Davis] filed another petition against [Frank] and Does 1-20 . . . and this petition was dismissed on December 22, 2020. [The first petition] was based on allegations [Frank] transferred the Parsonage into her name in September 2014. [The second petition] was based on allegations [Frank] obtained a refund belonging to [Davis from] Mega Life. [The third petition] was based on allegations [Frank], in part, transferred the Parsonage into her name in September 2014. The court therefore concludes the current petition against [Frank] with regard to the allegations of the transfer of the Parsonage in 2014 has been dismissed with prejudice as of December 22, 2020 as it was subject to Iowa R. Civ. [P.] 1.943 as the petitions were based on the same case. Thus, allegations in this case based on transfer of the Parsonage cannot be raised in this case against [Frank]. We agree with the district court’s analysis. The text of the rule is instructive. Davis previously dismissed two actions that included or were based on the same cause as the present action. The district court correctly recognized Davis had voluntarily dismissed his claims related to the 2014 transfer of the Parsonage 6 twice. Thus, he was barred from bringing claims related to the 2014 transfer a third time. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s rulings. 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.