parol evidence rule in Iowa

2020“When applicable, the parol evidence rule excludes extrinsic evidence which is solely offered for the purpose of varying, adding to, or subtracting from a written agreement.” Kroblin v. RDR Motels, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 430, 433 (Iowa 1984) (emphasis added); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 215 (Am.

2011Nevertheless, the parol-evidence rule does not prohibit the introduction of extrinsic evidence to show “the situation of the parties, ... attendant circumstances, and the objects they were striving to attain.” Kroblin, 347 N.W.2d at 433 .

2016However, the parol-evidence rule “does not come into play until by interpretation the meaning of the writing is ascertained, and, as an aid to interpretation, extrinsic evidence is admissible which sheds light on the situation of the parties, antecedent negotiations, attendant circumstances, and the objects the parties were striving to attain.” Hamilton v. Wosepka, 154 N.W.2d 164, 168 (Iowa 1967).

1985Racquet Club v. Midstates Builders Inc., 323 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Iowa 1982); Egan v. Egan, 212 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Iowa 1973); Hamilton v. Wosepka, 261 Iowa 299, 306 , 154 N.W.2d 164, 168 (1967); Central Transport v. Fruehauf Corp., 139 Mich.App. 536 , 362 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1984) (“Prerequisite to application of the parol evidence rule is a finding that the parties intended the writing to be a complete expression of their agreement.

2023This settlement agreement contained an integration clause, stating that it was “the entire agreement between the Parties and supersede[d] all prior discussions, understanding or representations.” For agreements that are fully integrated—meaning that the parties adopted a writing as the final and complete expression of their agreement—the parol-evidence rule does not permit “the use of extrinsic evidence introduced solely to vary, add to, or subtract from the agreement.” Id.

2022It may not be modified or amended, nor any waiver of its provisions, except by a written instrument executed by the parties.” “When an agreement is fully integrated, the parol-evidence rule forbids the use of extrinsic evidence introduced solely to vary, add to, or subtract from the agreement.” C & J Vantage Leasing Co. v. Wolfe, 795 N.W.2d 65, 85 (Iowa 2011). 19 McNeals’ counsel offered no explanation why the McNeals would sign an agreement requiring removal of derelict vehicles when they claimed to not have any on the property.12 So extrinsic evidence cannot support their theme that they int

1981Although extrinsic *476 evidence may be admissible to explain the real meaning of the parties by the language used in a contract, Hamilton v. Wosepka, 261 Iowa 299, 306 , 154 N.W.2d 164, 168 (1967), the parol evidence rule forbids the use of extrinsic evidence to vary, add to, or subtract from a written agreement, Associated Grocers of Iowa Cooperative, Inc. v. West, 297 N.W.2d 103, 109 (Iowa 1980); Pappas v. Hauser, 197 N.W.2d 607, 611 (Iowa 1972).

1975In Pappas v. Hauser, Iowa, 197 N.W.2d 607, 611 , we state: “When persons place their agreement in writing, the parol evidence rule forbids the use of extrinsic evidence to vary, add to, or subtract from the agreement.

1989(See Westway Trading Corp., 314 N.W.2d at 462 , where the supreme court held that extrinsic evidence could be used to aid the court in determining the parties’ intent under a written lease; Egan v. Egan, 212 N.W.2d 461, 465 (Iowa 1973) (testimony of plaintiff was properly received to aid the court in determining what quantity of land came within the term “crop land” as used in the lease); Peters v. Peters, 214 N.W.2d 151, 157 (Iowa 1974) (extrinsic evidence is admissible to show “what is meant by what is said.”)) But the parol evidence rule forbids use of extrinsic evidence to vary, add to, or

1985Racquet Club v. Midstates Builders Inc., 323 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Iowa 1982); Egan v. Egan, 212 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Iowa 1973); Hamilton v. Wosepka, 261 Iowa 299, 306 , 154 N.W.2d 164, 168 (1967); Central Transport v. Fruehauf Corp., 139 Mich.App. 536 , 362 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1984) (“Prerequisite to application of the parol evidence rule is a finding that the parties intended the writing to be a complete expression of their agreement.

2024Forms Corp., 305 N.W.2d 470 , 475–76 (Iowa 1981) (holding “where the handcrafted contract contains an integration 18 clause, where the parties were sophisticated business persons represented by counsel and of equal bargaining strength, and where terms of the alleged oral agreement reasonably would be expected to be included in the exchange agreement,” there was no error when court sustained a parol evidence rule objection and excluded evidence to vary the contract’s terms); see generally Iowa Code § 554.2202 (2017) (setting forth the parol evidence rule).

2000Corp. v. Economy Forms Corp., 305 N.W.2d 470, 475 (Iowa 1981) (“The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of substantive law.”).

2016See Whalen v. Connelly, 545 N.W.2d 284, 291 (Iowa 1996).

2011Whalen v. Connelly, 545 N.W.2d 284, 290 (Iowa 1996); Kroblin v. RDR Motels, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 430, 433 (Iowa 1984); Montgomery Props.

1988Tamm, Inc. v. Pildis, 249 N.W.2d 823, 831 (Iowa 1976).

1980See In re Estate of Kalouse, 282 N.W.2d 98, 105-06 (Iowa 1979); Tamm, Inc. v. Pildis, 249 N.W.2d 823, 834-35 (Iowa 1976).

2025See Garland v. Branstad, 648 N.W.2d 65, 69 (Iowa 2002).

2014See Garland v. Branstad, 648 N.W.2d 65, 69 (Iowa 2002) (stating the parol evidence rule forbids the use of extrinsic evidence to vary, add to, or subtract from a written agreement).

2017“Although the parol evidence rule is a substantive rule of law, standard error preservation rules regarding the admission of evidence apply to parol evidence issues.” Peck v. Four Aces Farms, Inc., No. 14-1482, 2015 WL 4642386 , at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2015) (citing Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000)).

2015See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000).

2012Racquet Club v. Midstates Builders, Inc., 323 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Iowa 1982) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

1985Racquet Club v. Midstates Builders Inc., 323 N.W.2d 214, 216 (Iowa 1982); Egan v. Egan, 212 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Iowa 1973); Hamilton v. Wosepka, 261 Iowa 299, 306 , 154 N.W.2d 164, 168 (1967); Central Transport v. Fruehauf Corp., 139 Mich.App. 536 , 362 N.W.2d 823, 827 (1984) (“Prerequisite to application of the parol evidence rule is a finding that the parties intended the writing to be a complete expression of their agreement.

2005Whalen, 545 N.W.2d at 291 ; Baie v. Nordstrom, 238 Iowa 866, 869 , 29 N.W.2d 211, 213 (1947).

2005Whalen, 545 N.W.2d at 291 ; Baie v. Nordstrom, 238 Iowa 866, 869 , 29 N.W.2d 211, 213 (1947).

1994“The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law not related to interpretation or the admission of evidence for the purpose of interpretation.” Folkers v. Southwest Leasing, 431 N.W.2d 177, 180 (Iowa App.1988).

1990See Folkers v. Southwest Leasing, 431 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Iowa App.1988).

1994See Johnson, 451 N.W.2d at 176 ; Matter of Estate of Kalouse, 282 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 1979).

1980See In re Estate of Kalouse, 282 N.W.2d 98, 105-06 (Iowa 1979); Tamm, Inc. v. Pildis, 249 N.W.2d 823, 834-35 (Iowa 1976).

1982Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, 221 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Iowa 1974).

1981Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 221 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Iowa 1974); Weik v. Ace Rents, Inc., 249 Iowa 510, 516 , 87 N.W.2d 314, 318 (1958); 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017 (1967).

1980Cf. e. g., Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459, 463-64 (1967) (Movant must show written agreement unambiguous before summary judgment would be granted under the parol evidence rule.).

1980Cf. e. g., Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459, 463-64 (1967) (Movant must show written agreement unambiguous before summary judgment would be granted under the parol evidence rule.).

2016The rule does not come into play until by interpretation the meaning of the writing is ascertained.” Westway Trading Corp. v. River Terminal Corp., 314 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Iowa 1982) (citations omitted).

1989(See Westway Trading Corp., 314 N.W.2d at 462 , where the supreme court held that extrinsic evidence could be used to aid the court in determining the parties’ intent under a written lease; Egan v. Egan, 212 N.W.2d 461, 465 (Iowa 1973) (testimony of plaintiff was properly received to aid the court in determining what quantity of land came within the term “crop land” as used in the lease); Peters v. Peters, 214 N.W.2d 151, 157 (Iowa 1974) (extrinsic evidence is admissible to show “what is meant by what is said.”)) But the parol evidence rule forbids use of extrinsic evidence to vary, add to, or

2011Int’l Milling Co. v. Gisch, 258 Iowa 63, 71 , 137 N.W.2d 625, 630 (1965).

2011Int’l Milling Co. v. Gisch, 258 Iowa 63, 71 , 137 N.W.2d 625, 630 (1965).

2022When an agreement is “fully integrated,” “a party may not use extrinsic evidence . . . ‘solely to vary, add to, or subtract from the agreement.’” Cannon v. Bodensteiner Implement Co., 903 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted).

2022Even when an agreement is only partially integrated, “the parol evidence rule bars proof of contradictory terms.” Chau Pham v. Nguyen, No. 09- 25 0120, 2009 WL 2392919, *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2009).