Syester V Banta

257 Iowa 613, 133 N.W.2d 666 (1965)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a widow living alone. She is 68 years old. After her husband's death P worked at Bishops as a 'coffee girl.' She went to the D Studio in 1954 as a gift from a friend. D was invited to return a few days later. When she returned, she was interviewed by the manager and sold a small course of dancing lessons. Eventually, D sold P 3222 hours of dancing instruction for which she paid $21,020.50. In all, according to the testimony P paid $33,497 for 4057 hours of instruction. With refunds and credits, P paid at least $29,174.30. On May 2, 1955, when P bought 1200 additional hours of instruction for $6000 she had already bought 2022 hours and had used only 261 hours. P got lifetime memberships and free attendance to weekly dances for life and two hours of instruction or practice a month to keep active on what had been learned. P got three-lifetime memberships. P attended the weekly dances and incidental entertainments and admitted having fun. P was told she would be a professional dancer. P was no match for D's highly trained instructors. P was even awarded a Bronze Medal, then a Silver Medal and then a Gold Medal. These awards were given P all in the same year although D's manager testified that it takes approximately two to four years to qualify for a Bronze Medal, five to seven years for a Silver Medal and anytime after 1200 hours a student could qualify for the Gold Medal. From 1957 through the fall of 1960 P's dancing ability did not improve. P even gave her 25-year-old regular instructor a diamond ring for his birthday in 1960. When P quit, she still had 1750 hours of unused time that she had purchased. P employed counsel to represent her in a lawsuit against D. Her counsel contacted D. Conferences were held. Mr. Carey, her ex-25-year-old dance instructor, was reemployed and asked to convince P to drop her suit. Other people contacted Pat the instigation of D. These efforts were fruitful. P made what D claims was a complete settlement. D's counsel prepared a written release but refused to make a settlement. D went to P's home and persuaded P to discharge her counsel by phone and agree to settle for the refund of her March 2, 1960, payment of $6090. P's counsel received his share although there is no evidence that the settlement was ever pursuant to his advice. There is evidence that D was attempting to lead P away from her own counsel. The release signed by P is a specific release of her claim based on the March 2, 1960, payment and a general release of all claims. P dismissed the pending lawsuit and returned to the studio and participated in the activities for several months. A second release was signed for $4,000, but nothing was paid. D's manager testified that the failure to pay was a mistake and that the studio was to pay. The present action was filed March 12, 1963. It alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the several sales to P and in obtaining dismissal of the previous lawsuit and the releases signed by P. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $14,300 actual damages and $40,000 punitive damages. D appealed.