Faber v. Herman

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court considered a legal malpractice action arising from the division of a defined-benefit IPERS pension in a dissolution proceeding. The court held as a matter of law that the alleged negligence did not cause the compensatory damages claimed because the parties intended an equal division and the approved pension-division method produced the equivalent of an equal share. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and reversed the district court judgment.

Holdings

1. The alleged negligence did not cause Faber's claimed compensatory damages as a matter of law because Faber and Karen intended to divide the IPERS pension equally, and a properly applied equal division under any approved method would produce the same basic result.
2. The district court erred in denying Herman's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence and the parties' agreed equal-division objective could not establish causation for the damages sought.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Herman's alleged negligence in drafting the stipulation and QDRO, advising Faber about pension-division methods, and failing to disclose the change in distribution method legally or factually caused the compensatory damages claimed by Faber.
2. Whether the district court erred by denying Herman's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Disposition

reversed