MARVIN E. KRAUS AND KEVIN W. KRAUS, as Co-Executors of the ESTATE OF BEVERLY A. KRAUS, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VINCENT MUMMAU, Defendant-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Margaret L.
appeals the district court decision denying his request to
set aside a civil judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud.
Matthew M. Sahag of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, P.L.C.,
Des Moines, for appellant.
Benjamin G. Arato and Robert G. Tully of Law Offices of Rob
Tully, P.C., West Des Moines, and Mark A. Roeder of Roeder
Law Office, Manchester, for appellee.
by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
Mummau appeals the district court decision denying his
request to set aside a civil judgment on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud. We find Mummau has not shown there was
extrinsic fraud and the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying his petition to vacate the civil
judgment under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012. We affirm
the decision of the district court.
Background Facts & Proceedings
was convicted of sexual abuse in the third degree, in
violation of Iowa Code section 709.4 (2011), based on an
incident which occurred on July 7, 2011. His conviction was
affirmed on appeal. See State v. Mummau, No. 12-1082,
2013 WL 2145994, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. May 15, 2013).
of the criminal case, the victim, Beverly Kraus, who was then
seventy-three years old, gave a deposition on August 16,
2011. Kraus was asked, "Have you ever made any kind of
complaints regarding sexual impropriety by anybody
else?" Kraus stated she had been molested by a relative
when she was a child. She was then questioned:
Q. Since that time was there ever any other time that you
made a complaint against anybody about a sexual impropriety?
Q. And that would also go for at work; there was never any
kind of a sexual harassment claim or anything like that? A.
No, not from me.
December 26, 2012, Kraus filed a civil action against Mummau
seeking damages from him on the grounds of sexual battery and
deposition in the civil action was taken on October 3, 2013.
Her attorney stated evidence of Kraus's sexual conduct
with persons other than Mummau, the person who committed the
sexual abuse, was not subject to discovery under section
668.15, and instructed Kraus not to answer questions on the
issue. Mummau's attorney stated, "[W]e'll move
on and deal with it later." Kraus was asked if she had
been the defendant in any civil suits. She was not questioned
about whether ...