Opinion
No. 1-731 / 98-1389.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, JAMES D. SCOTT, Judge.
Property owner appeals the district court rulings entering a judgment for repair bills, costs, interest, and assessment against her and ordering issuance of execution and sheriff's sale of the property. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Robert Wright, Jr. of Wright Wright, Des Moines, until withdrawal, and then Greta Postma, Clara City, Minnesota, pro se.
Loren Veldhuizen, Alton, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ. HUITINK, J., takes no part.
Greta Postma appeals a district court order authorizing the sheriff to sell certain property owned by her for remedial safety repairs made by the city of Orange City. Upon review we find this matter fits the criterion outlined in Iowa Supreme Court Rule 9, for the issuance of a memorandum opinion.
On September 15, 1997, the city of Orange City filed, under the authority of Iowa Code section 364.22 (1999), a civil citation charging Postma, as owner of Lot 10 and the East 10 feet of Lot 9, Block 15, Original Plat, Orange City, Iowa, with a violation of City Code section 6-3-3-b, providing for public safety by removal, repair, or dismantling of a dangerous building or structure. Following a hearing at which Postma did not appear, the district court authorized Orange City to either repair or demolish the property in question. The court subsequently entered judgment against Postma in the amount of $43,132.26, plus costs and interest, for the improvements Orange City made to salvage the unsafe property. The court further ordered the issuance of a special execution and sheriff's sale to satisfy the judgment. Postma appeals from this and various other orders.
On appeal, Postma first contends the Iowa district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because: (1) no original notice was filed or served to commence a civil action; (2) a copy, rather than the original of the citation, was served on her; (3) Orange City did not obtain leave from the federal court to file this action; and (4) notice was not published. She also asserts: (1) the judgment is void because the trial was held during a time in which the matter had been removed to federal court; (2) the ex parte judgment violated her constitutional due process guarantees; (3) the district court illegally acted on a matter that had been transferred to the supreme court; and (4) the property was illegally taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
We believe Postma's near wholesale failure to comply with the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure precludes us from considering her arguments on appeal. Such a failure to adhere to the rules of appellate procedure can, and has in the past, lead to summary disposition of an appeal. See Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 239 (Iowa 1974) (dismissing appeal based on party's failure to cite any authority). Where a party's failure to comply with the rules requires the court "to assume a partisan role and undertake the [party's] research and advocacy," we will dismiss the appeal. State v. Stoen, 596 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Iowa 1999) (citing Inghram, 215 N.W.2d at 240).
Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(a)(5) requires that:
Each division of the argument shall begin with a discussion, citing relevant authority, concerning the scope or standard of appellate review (e.g., "on error," "abuse of discretion," "de novo") and shall state how the issue was preserved for review, with references to the places in the record where the issue was raised and decided.
Here, Postma's brief contains no discussion regarding the appropriate standard of review. Nor does it mention how any of her contentions were preserved for our review. There are no citations to the record as to where this court can determine for itself whether the issues were raised and decided. Postma's meager appendix, in connection with the voluminous record of proceedings below, puts this court in the difficult position of having to comb through the documents to engage in research and argument required by the rules to be done by Postma. In addition, she failed to include in her brief a "statement of issues presented for review" as required by Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(a)(3). We believe this substantially hinders our review and consideration of the issues before us on appeal. Further, to engage in such analysis on our own would lean too close toward advocacy in favor of Postma. This we cannot do. The fact that Postma is pursuing this appeal without the aid of a lawyer does not excuse these substantial departures from appellate procedure. See In re Estate of DeTar, 572 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
We also note that the supreme court has ordered that a motion to expunge shall be submitted with this appeal. We reject Postma's contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction when it acted prior to having received a certified copy of the remand order from the Federal District Court. See State ex rel. Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. City of Albuquerque, 889 P.2d 204, 206, 207 (N.M.Ct.App. 1993); Citizens Bank Trust Co. v. Carr, 583 So.2d 864, 866 (La.Ct.App. 1991) ("The action of a court entering an order of remand, and not the action of a clerk in mailing a copy of the order, determines the vesting of [state court] jurisdiction.").
Accordingly, we conclude this case is subject to summary disposition, and therefore dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.