State Central Bank v. Bruce Meriwether
This text of State Central Bank v. Bruce Meriwether (State Central Bank v. Bruce Meriwether) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1917 Filed October 15, 2014
STATE CENTRAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
BRUCE MERIWETHER, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A.
Bitter, Judge.
State Central Bank appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Bruce Meriwether. AFFIRMED.
Curtis Dial of Law Office of Curtis Dial, Keokuk, for appellant.
Stephen J. Juergens of Fuerste, Carew, Juergens & Sudmeier, P.C.,
Dubuque, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2
DOYLE, J.
State Central Bank filed suit against Bruce Meriwether alleging Meriwether
breached a consulting and non-compete agreement. The summary judgment
record reflects the following. The pertinent part of the contract required
Meriwether to: “Consult with and assist the President of the Bank’s Dubuque
branch operations with the promotion and development of Bank’s business in the
Dubuque area.” Meriwether provided consulting services to the bank’s Dubuque
branch president, Richard Bean. Meriwether was not asked to provide consulting
services to Bean’s successors, Gary Martin and Scott Piper. Meriwether never
refused to consult with Bean, Martin, or Piper. In resisting Meriwether’s motion
for summary judgment, the bank presented no evidence to the contrary. Instead,
the bank proffered the affidavit of W. Tyler Logan, who was President and CEO
of the State Central Bank of Keokuk. Logan stated Meriwether declined his
requests for assistance regarding issues at the bank’s Dubuque branch.
In granting summary judgment in favor of Meriwether, the district court
stated:
As to State Central’s claim that Meriwether breached the consulting agreement, it is clear that Meriwether was contractually obligated to “consult with and assist the President of Bank’s Dubuque branch operations with the promotion and development of Bank’s business in the Dubuque area.” Meriwether has not failed to do so, and State Central cannot generate a fact issue in this regard. At best, Meriwether failed to consult with Logan, who was not the President of the Dubuque branch. Based upon the undisputed facts, Meriwether did not breach the consulting agreement.
The court concluded Meriwether was entitled to summary judgment. We agree. 3
We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the
district court’s spot-on, thorough, and well-reasoned ruling. The district court’s
ruling identifies and considers all the issues presented, and we approve of the
reasons and conclusions in the ruling. Further discussion of the issues would be
of little to no value and would not change the disposition of this case. See Iowa
Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Meriwether.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State Central Bank v. Bruce Meriwether, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-central-bank-v-bruce-meriwether-iowactapp-2014.