Justin Wise v. Scafferi Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Rainbow International of Grundy County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0608
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

Justin Wise,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Scafferi Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Rainbow International of Grundy
County
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County,
The Honorable Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Jennie L. Wilson-Moore of Wilson Law Firm, Conrad, attorney for
appellant.

Michael Marquess of Marquess Law Office P.C., Toledo, attorney for
appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Badding, J.

1
BADDING, Judge.

Justin Wise’s fire-damaged home was still stripped to the studs when
the contractors responsible for completing repairs told him “the money was
gone” and then walked off the job. With his insurance coverage exhausted,
Wise had to finish the project out-of-pocket. He later sought to recover the
costs from Scafferi Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Rainbow International
(“Rainbow”), the company he claims agreed to oversee the reconstruction
of his house within policy limits. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Wise.

On appeal from that verdict, Rainbow raises a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, framing its sole claim of error this way:
The Jury Erred in its Determination to Find that the Petitioner Contracted
with Rainbow to Perform General Contractor Services on His Home in
Grundy County Following a Fire and that Rainbow Breached the Contract
and that the Petitioner Suffered Damages as a Result of the Alleged Breach
of Contract and that the Petitioner did not Breach the Contract First by
Preventing Respondent from Performing on the Contract.

This claim is not properly before us. In a civil case tried at law, we
review the district court’s legal conclusions—not the factual determinations
of the jury. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; Van Sloun v. Agans Bros., 778
N.W.2d 174, 178 (Iowa 2010) (“Generally, an action on contract is treated as
one at law.” (citation omitted)). A defendant may challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence through a motion for directed verdict, but appellate review
“is limited to those grounds raised in the defendant’s motion.” Royal Indem.
Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins., 786 N.W.2d 839, 844 (Iowa 2010). This limitation
distinguishes civil jury cases from those tried to the bench, where a party
“may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain any finding without
having objected to it by motion or otherwise.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(1); see
also Moody v. Bogue, 310 N.W.2d 655, 658 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981).

2
Because Rainbow never sought a directed verdict, it has not preserved
error on its sufficiency challenge. See, e.g., Channon v. United Parcel Serv.,
Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 859 (Iowa 2001) (finding a sufficiency claim
unpreserved where the defendant did not raise the challenged issues in a
motion for directed verdict). We accordingly decline to consider Rainbow’s
appeal, even though Wise failed to dispute preservation of error. See Halbur
v. Larson, 14 N.W.3d 363, 371 (Iowa 2024) (noting “this court will consider
on appeal whether error was preserved despite the opposing party’s omission
in not raising this issue at trial or on appeal” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

3