Opinion
No. 6-026 / 05-0856
Filed February 1, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge.
Deanna Lynn Bauler appeals from decree dissolving her marriage to Michael Bauler. AFFIRMED.
Michael Pedersen, Waterloo, for appellant.
James Wagner of Gartelos, Wagner Ament, Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Deanna Lynn Bauler appeals from decree dissolving her marriage to Michael Bauler. She contends the district court erred in failing to sustain her motion to compel discovery and in denying her motion to continue the trial. We review her claims for an abuse of discretion. Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Incorporated City of Spencer, 682 N.W.2d 62, 66 (Iowa 2004); Winchester v. Strottman, 535 N.W.2d 480, 481 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
From the filing of her petition for dissolution through post-trial motions, a period of nine months, Deanna had four different attorneys representing her. She fired the third a mere week before trial and filed a pro se motion to compel discovery. That motion states:
I would like Michael Bauler to answer the 14 Interrogatory questions that were issued to him Nov. 18, 2004. Were due Dec. 18, 2004. I still do not have.
The motion contained no allegation that a good faith attempt was made to resolve the issue with opposing counsel as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.517(5). Deanna, on the day, of trial sought to have the trial continued so that discovery could be completed. Michael resisted continuation of the trial, and the court refused to grant the continuance. There is no record of a ruling on the motion to compel.
Trial proceeded on April 12, 2005, with Deanna representing herself. The court entered its decree on April 15. On April 22, Deanna, through her current counsel, filed a motion for new trial, which the court denied.
In regard to Deanna's motion to compel discovery, we note it did not meet the requirements set forth in the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. "Substantial departures" from trial or appellate procedures cannot be permitted simply because a person acts in a pro se capacity. Polk County v. Davis, 525 N.W.2d 434, 435 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Furthermore, error on the issue has not been preserved due to her failure to obtain a ruling on the motion. See Kimm v. Kimm, 464 N.W.2d 468, 475 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990) (holding the trial court may not be put in error unless the issue was presented for ruling, and the failure to obtain a ruling is inexcusable unless the court refuses or fails to rule after a ruling is requested).
We also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for continuance. Rulings on a motion to continue are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hawkeye Bank Trust v. Baugh, 463 N.W.2d 22, 26 (Iowa 1990). We will reverse only when that discretion is abused. Id. The trial court overruled the motion to continue after making inquiry into the matters sought in discovery. Informal exchanges of information had occurred and while it is clear Deanna suspects Michael was hiding assets, there is nothing to suggest the discovery process would reveal any additional information. Faced with continuing a case on the day of trial when the other side was present and prepared to proceed and with knowledge of the discovery issue involved the trial court was justified in overruling the motion to continue. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.