Opinion
No. 2-837 / 02-0363.
Filed December 11, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, WILLIAM JOY, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the district court's ruling granting the executor's motion to dismiss his claim in probate. AFFIRMED.
Steven Brick of Brick, Gentry, Bowers, Swartz, Stoltze, Schuling Levis, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Ralph Brown of McDonald, Brown Fagen, Dallas Center, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Randall L. Brooks appeals from the district court's ruling granting the executor's motion to dismiss his claim in probate. He contends the district court erred in finding that the procedure implemented by the executor in this case met the due process requirements imposed by the United States and Iowa Constitutions and statute. We affirm.
Maxine R. Davis died on July 8, 2001. Her daughter, Dixie Ann Davis Richardson, filed a petition for probate of the will and appointment of executor and was duly appointed executor of Maxine's estate. Randall Brooks filed a claim in probate on November 6, 2001, asserting the estate owed him $102,085.68 for "farm work and care of home." The executor served a notice of disallowance of Brooks's claim. Brooks filed a request for hearing on his claim. The executor filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that Brooks did not file his request for hearing within the statutory time limit. Brooks filed a resistance and "sur-resistance" to the motion to dismiss, arguing his claim should not be dismissed because such a dismissal would violate various statutory and constitutional provisions. The motion and resistance were submitted on the contents of the court file, the arguments of counsel, and briefs.
The court granted the executor's motion to dismiss, finding that Brooks's request for hearing was not timely filed with the clerk and thus under Iowa Code section 633.442 (2001) that claim is forever barred. The court also noted that although Brooks urged several theories to allow his claim to survive, the prior supreme court case of Bruce v. Wookey, 261 Iowa 231, 154 N.W.2d 93 (1967) was controlling concerning timeliness of the request for hearing and disposed of the issue.
The sole issue raised by Brooks on appeal is his contention that the district court erred in finding that the procedure implemented by the executor in this case met the due process requirements imposed by the United States and Iowa Constitutions and statute. The flaw in his argument is that although it is clear Brooks raised the due process issue in both his resistance and sur-resistance, the district court did not address or rule on the alleged due process violation and Brooks did not thereafter file a motion requesting that the court rule on the issue.
"It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal." Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). We require error preservation even on issues of constitutional magnitude. O'Hara v. State, 642 N.W.2d 303, 314 (Iowa 2002). When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal. Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537; Benavides v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co., 539 N.W.2d 352, 356 (Iowa 1995); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pflibsen, 350 N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa 1984). "It is not a sensible exercise of appellate review to analyze facts of an issue `without the benefit of a full record or lower court determination.'" Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537 (citing Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 538, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1534, 118 L.Ed.2d 153, 172 (1992)).
Here the court did not address or rule on the due process issue raised by Brooks and Brooks did not request a ruling on this unresolved issue by motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(b) or otherwise. Accordingly, "[t]he court was not given an opportunity to address its failure to rule on the issue either by making a ruling or refusing to do so." Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 539. We find Brooks has failed to preserve error on this issue.
In his reply brief Brooks argues error was preserved because he raised the issue regarding due process in his resistance and sur-resistance and thus the court was aware of the issue. Brooks is correct in stating that the "claim or issue raised does not actually need to be used as the basis for the decision to be preserved, but the record must at least reveal the court was aware of the claim or issue and litigated it." Id. at 540. However here, as in Meier, this was not the only issue raised by Brooks in support of his resistance to the executor's motion to dismiss. Thus, the court's grant of the motion does not necessarily mean the issue was considered. See id. Furthermore, the record does not indicate the due process issue was considered by the district court. The hearing on the motion was not reported and the court did not address the issue in its written ruling. The court confined its ruling to the procedural bar under section 633.442 and the fact Brooks had options as to when and how to request a hearing or bring his claim. See id. at 540-41 (citing Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 343 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Iowa 1984) for the proposition that an alternative argument set forth in a motion not specifically addressed by the district court ruling on the motion was not preserved for review).
The district court did not address and decide Brooks's due process claim. Brooks did not call to the attention of the district court its failure to consider the issue and thus give the court an opportunity to pass upon it. We conclude error was not preserved on the issue Brooks now attempts to present on appeal and the issue is not properly before us for our review. The district court's grant of the executor's motion to dismiss will be affirmed.
Although we have resolved this appeal on grounds of error preservation, we have also considered arguments concerning interpretation and application of Iowa statutes and Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure that Brooks raised in the trial court and that may arguably be subsumed in the due process issue he attempts to present on appeal. We find no merit in those arguments.