In the Court of Appeals of Iowa s9

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 5-733 / 04-1018 Filed February 1, 2006

PAUL MICHELS, Appellant, vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA f/k/a NORWEST BANK OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Gary E. Wenell,

Judge.

A plaintiff appeals from a district court summary judgment ruling that dismissed his claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and punitive damages.

AFFIRMED.

Brian L. Radke of Radke Law Office, P.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for appellant.

Michael P. Jacobs of Rawlings, Nieland, Probasco, Killinger, Ellwanger,

Jacobs & Mohrhauser, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellee. 2

Heard by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Paul Michels appeals from a district court summary judgment ruling that dismissed his claims against Wells Fargo Bank of Sioux City, Iowa (Wells Fargo).

This matter arose after Michels assigned his Merrill Lynch life insurance policy to

Wells Fargo as collateral for “any and all liabilities . . . of Chris Karantinos . . . either now existing or that may be hereafter contracted or acquired . . . .” When

Karantinos defaulted on his obligations to the bank, Wells Fargo, in accord with the assignment documents, obtained the maximum loan available under the policy as well as the policy’s cash surrender value.

Michels then filed suit against Wells Fargo, asserting claims for breach of contract, negligence, breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and punitive damages.1 Michels contended

Karantinos was not simply a bank customer, but had acted as an agent of the bank in obtaining Michels’s signature on various documents. Michels sought to avoid the assignment, and asserted that Wells Fargo had breached and was negligent in its enforcement of the assignment contract. Michels also contended the bank was negligent in the performance of its duties, and either failed to adequately protect him from or participated in Karantinos’s fraudulent acts.

Each party filed a motion for summary judgment. Wells Fargo sought dismissal of Michels’s claims, and Michels sought summary judgment on his claims for breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, as well as his assertion that Karantinos was acting as the bank’s agent. In a thirty

1 The petition also asserted a claim for conversion. However, this claim is not at issue on appeal. 3 page ruling the district court analyzed Michels’s claims, and found them wanting.

It accordingly dismissed Michels’s petition.

Michels appeals. He asserts the court erred in granting Wells Fargo summary judgment because the record contains disputed issues of fact material to the resolution of his claims. Upon our review for the correction of errors at law,

Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; General Car & Truck Leasing Sys., Inc. v. Lane &

Waterman, 557 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1996), we affirm the district court.

We have reviewed the district court’s detailed and lengthy summary judgment ruling, and conclude that it correctly sets forth the undisputed facts of this case. Moreover, the court’s reasoning was thoughtful and sound, and its legal conclusions were correct. Nothing is gained by fully repeating the complex factual circumstances and comprehensive legal analysis aptly set forth in the court’s ruling. We simply note that, while it appears Karantinos engaged in dubious, deceptive, and perhaps fraudulent acts, Michels’s response to the bank’s properly supported motion for summary judgment presents no substantial evidence that Karantinos was acting as the bank’s agent, or that the bank was otherwise responsible for Karantinos’s actions. The summary judgment record further demonstrates the assignment was enforceable, and there is no evidence the bank breached the assignment agreement or that it breached or was negligent in the performance of any duty.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Michels, the record presents no disputed issue of fact material to any of his claims, and Wells Fargo was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the district court did not err in 4 granting Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment. See Iowa R. Civ. P.

1.981(5); Bearshield v. John Morrell & Co., 570 N.W.2d 915, 917 (Iowa 1997).

AFFIRMED.