By PETER HUSSMANN
The former owner of a local car dealership who had filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against two Newton attorneys voluntarily dismissed the claims earlier this month.
Ira Mitchell, the former owner of Ira Mitchell Motors in Newton, filed the action in Jasper County District Court in the fall of 2007 againstNewton attorneys Ken Smith and Steve Holwerda. Both were were working for the law firm Selby, Updegraff and Smith at the time the action arose. In addition, Mitchell brought Maples Chevrolet into the suit on a breach of contract claim.
According to the petition, Mitchell, who was represented in the malpractice suit by Des Moines attorney Alfredo Parrish, entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement in April 2002 with Maples Chevrolet to purchase the Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac dealership. Maples Chevrolet retained ownership of the real estate. Mitchell entered into a $1.26 million lease purchase agreement with James Maples that required Mitchell to complete the purchase within five years.
At the same time, court records state, Mitchell hired the Selby law firm to provide legal services for his car dealership organization. Holwerda was the attorney in the firm assigned the work. Court records state that Mitchell later learned that Smith was representing Maples and another local car dealership owner, Dean Lauterbach.
In late 2006 and 2007, Lauterbach and Mitchell entered into negotiations that ultimately led to Mitchell's sale of the GMC franchise to Lauterbach for $600,000. Mitchell was represented by Holwerda while Lauterbach was represented by Smith, the suit states.
In the spring of 2007, court records state, Mitchell began exploring the possibility of selling his Chevrolet and Cadillac dealerships. Negotiations again occurred between Mitchell, Lauterbach and Maples, as owner of the property. At the same time, Mitchell also entered into "confidential discussions" with General Motors to obtain a buyer for his Chevrolet and Cadillac franchises.
At this point, Mitchell contends in his suit, "confidences and secrets" were disclosed to Smith who in turn passed that information on to Maples and Lauterbach. Mitchell claims Smith contacted General Motors representatives suggesting legal action might be taken should the automobile company assist Mitchell in the sale of his franchises in an effort to prevent other prospective buyers from having an opportunity to attain the dealership.
In his suit, Mitchell claims Smith's and Holwerda's actions were professionally negligent, a breach of their fiduciary relationship, negligent misrepresentation and constituted fraudulent nondisclosure. Mitchell claimed the actions of the two attorneys were "willful and wanton" and sought punitive damages. He later brought in loss of consortium claims on behalf of his wife and children.
His case against Maples involved a breach of contract after the former car dealer owner obtained a Forcible Entry and Detainer judgment against Mitchell to remove him from the property. Maples also filed a counterclaim against Mitchell saying their agreement to extend the lease purchase deadline past the April 2007 deadline was breached after Mitchell failed to make monthly $13,000 payments. After Mitchell dismissed his suit, Maples filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim against Mitchell.
Smith and Holwerda vehemently denied Mitchell's allegations and aggressively defended their positions.
Mitchell's decision to dismiss the suit appears to have hinged on a district court judge's ruling in January that ordered Mitchell to disclose confidential attorney-client communications between the former Newton car dealer and his malpractice attorney. During discovery depositions, it was found that Mitchell may have used Parrish in negotiations to dispose of his automotive franchise interests, the basis for the damages he claimed in the suit. On a motion to compel, the judge granted Smith's and Holwerda's effort to pursue that line of inquiry.
While Parrish was granted discretionary review by the Iowa Supreme Court on the district court's ruling, the suit was voluntarily dismissed before that argument could be made to the court. On April 6, Mitchell filed paperwork with the court dismissing the action with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.
Recent Comments