Opinion
No. 2-231 / 00-1935.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, DEWIE J. GAUL, Judge.
Greta Postma appeals the district court decision on a motion to reconsider, dismissing her petition to overturn a previous judgment. RULING VACATED.
Greta K. Postma, Clara City, Minnesota, pro se.
Loren J. Veldhuizen, City Attorney, Alton, for appellee.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and HECHT, JJ. HUITINK, J. takes no part.
Greta Postma appeals the district court decision on a motion to reconsider, dismissing her petition to overturn a previous judgment. She claims the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to reconsider after notice of appeal had been filed. She also claims the judge did not have authority to rule on her case as a senior judge.
In January 1998 the district court determined certain property owned by Postma in Orange City, Iowa, was a hazard to public safety. The property was sold at a sheriff's sale. This sale was the subject of two previous appeals. City of Orange City v. Lot 10, No. 98-1389 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan 28, 2002) and City of Orange City v. Lot 10, No. 99-1565 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2002).
On February 5, 1999, Postma filed the present equitable action, seeking to vacate the judgment for Orange City. On September 7, 2000, the action was dismissed as an improper collateral attack on the earlier judgment. Postma filed a motion to reconsider on September 19, 2000. Prior to a ruling on her motion to reconsider, Postma filed an appeal of the September 7 ruling. See Postma v. City of Orange City, No. 00-1744 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002).
Despite the appeal, the district court entered a ruling on October 19, 2000, denying the motion to reconsider, finding Postma's petition failed to state a cause of action. Postma now appeals the October 19 order, claiming the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion to reconsider because the case was on appeal.
It is clear the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion to reconsider. As a general rule, a district court loses jurisdiction over the merits of a controversy once the notice of appeal is perfected. Gutierrez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 638 N.W.2d 702, 706-07 (Iowa 2002); Shedlock v. Iowa Dist. Court, 534 N.W.2d 656, 658 (Iowa 1995). The district court retains jurisdiction only as to issues collateral to and not affecting the subject matter of the appeal. State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 46 (Iowa 2001). Here, the issue addressed in the ruling entered after the appeal was filed was exactly the issue that was raised on appeal. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to address the motion to reconsider.
We determine the district court's ruling on the motion to reconsider should be vacated. Because we determine the ruling should be vacated, we do not need to consider any other issues raised in this appeal. We note that the previous dismissal of Postma's action, appealed in Postma v. City of Orange City, No. 00-1744 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002), still stands.
RULING VACATED.