from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Patrick M.
debtors appeal the district court's grant of summary
judgment to the bank in a replevin action.
Krull of Waagmeester Law Office, P.L.C., Rock Rapids, for
E. DeKoter of DeKoter, Thole, Dawson & Rockman, P.L.C.,
Sibley, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor,
JJ. Carr, S.J. takes no part.
replevin challenge is a companion case to a foreclosure
appeal also decided today. Dale and Danna Braaksma, their son
Jesse, and Braaksma Grain Farms, Inc. (collectively the
Braaksmas) signed security agreements giving Sibley State
Bank rights to possession of the pledged collateral after
default. Having rejected the Braaksmas' argument
concerning Iowa Code section 654.2A(4)(b) (2017) in the
foreclosure appeal, we affirm here by memorandum opinion.
Facts and Prior Proceedings
October 2016 the bank filed a petition for replevin. The
petition alleged the Braaksmas were in default on six
promissory notes, all of which included a commercial security
agreement giving the bank an interest in the Braaksmas'
property. In November, the Braaksmas answered admitting the
execution of the promissory notes and the defaulted balances
but denying knowledge of the bank's right to obtain
satisfaction through the replevin process. That same month,
the bank filed a motion for immediate writ of replevin and
requested an expedited hearing. After an early December
hearing, the district court granted the bank's
application for immediate writ of replevin. The bank filed a
replevin bond showing an amount of $2, 589, 218. On the same
day, the clerk of the district court issued a writ of
replevin to the Osceola County Sheriff.
February 2017, the bank filed an accounting of replevied
property and a notice of disposition of collateral, including
tractors and other farm equipment that the bank intended to
sell at auction to the highest bidder. The Braaksmas sought
an injunction; the bank resisted and asked for summary
judgment on the replevin action.
In May 2017, the district court granted the bank's
the question in considering the pending motion for summary
judgment is whether [the evidence], from the pleadings,
affidavits and other materials offered in support or
resistance thereof, shows that there is any material fact in
dispute adverse to the Plaintiff's right to possession of
In this regard, default is admitted. All of the applicable
security agreements provide that the Plaintiff bank is
entitled to possession of the collateral upon default. It
does not appear that there is any disputed material fact
necessary to support the Plaintiff bank's right to
possession of the collateral. Under this circumstance, the