LEINING A CUSTOMER OVER
Storm Lake Corporation, on May 6, 1998. The lien was prompted not by a
dispute with Storm Lake corporation, but by a disagreement between Menninga
and another party, Fargo Group. Like many liens, this was prompted by
Menninga attempting to charge $7,802 more than the original contract amount
with Fargo.
BRENTON BANK V. MENNINGA, OTHERS
Brenton Bank foreclosed against Marshalltown LLC, and also named Menninga,
and others as defendants, claiming that Marshalltown had fallen behind on a
$1.5 million note. The Marshall town situation became a quagmire of
litigation, including the following suit filed by Menninga.
MENNINGA ELECTRIC V. COREY DEVELOPMENT
Corey Development, acting as the agent for Marshalltown LLC, hired
Menninga to install an electric sign at a Staples store in Marshalltown,
Iowa. Once again, Menninga asked Corey for more money than what was
originally bid, claiming change orders. Corey did not pay, and Menninga
sued, according to the 1999 answers filed in the case. In a related case,
Menninga was also sued by Earlham Savings Bank, who won a default decree.
MENNINGA V. EARL BAUGH
Menninga sued their former customer, Dodge Cleaners in Waterloo, Iowa,
for $2,471.
BOMMSA’S V. MENNINGA, OTHERS
Boomsa sued Menninga and others, because of Menninga filing a lien
against the property of Egg Drying Operations, Inc. Menninga answered that
his lien was paramount to the interest of other creditors.
MENNINGA ELECTRIC V. JOSHUA BRAYTON
In this sad, 1998 case, Joshua Brayton enrolled, but later dropped out of
Menninga’s training program. Menninga came after him with both fists,
seeking to recover $1,100 the company claimed it had invested in tuition and
books for Brayton’s training. Originally, the Iowa Workforce Development
agency forced Menninga to pay back $1,100 to Brayton, for making
unauthorized deductions from his paycheck for the training materials. But
that adverse agency ruling did not deter Menninga from pursuing Brayton in
court. Rather than let Brayton seek job training elsewhere, Menninga decided
to hound him for the $1,100 that a state agency had ordered Menninga to
reimburse to him. This was not the only case in which Menninga pursued his
former employees in court, over training payment disputes.
MENNINGA V. GOODYK
Menninga sought to recover the grand sum of $1,550 from Curtis Goodyk, a
former employee who departed from Menninga’s training program. Menninga
managed to avoid federal court jurisdiction, by claiming its training
program was not an employee welfare benefit plan. The federal court agreed,
but declined to award Menninga’s costs when the case was remanded to state
court.
