From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodson v. Regency Builders

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 28, 2003
662 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. 2-901 / 02-0326.

Filed February 28, 2003.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert D. Wilson, Judge.

The Woodsons appeal from the district court's decision denying their motion to reinstate their cause of action following its dismissal under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.944. AFFIRMED.

Rodney Powell of the Powell Law Firm, P.C., Norwalk, for appellant.

Thomas Fisher, Jr. of Hogan Fisher, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.


The Woodsons appeal from the district court's decision denying their motion to reinstate their cause of action following its dismissal under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.944. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The Woodsons purchased a new home from Regency Builders in 1994. They later discovered defects in the home and requested Regency correct them. After several years of dissatisfaction with Regency's response, the Woodsons filed suit in June of 1999 alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. Regency filed an answer, and the parties engaged in discovery.

In April 2000, the parties reached a settlement agreement, signed by both parties' attorneys. The settlement agreement provided that when Regency performed certain specified repairs to the Woodsons' home, the Woodsons would dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice. Throughout the rest of the year, the parties disagreed about the scope and method of the repairs and continued to renegotiate the terms of the agreement, both with and without their attorneys. Other versions of the settlement agreement were drafted, but none was signed by both parties. However, during this time, Regency did correct many of the defects referred to in the original settlement agreement.

On July 19, 2000, the clerk of Polk County District Court served a rule 1.944 dismissal notice. On December 29, 2000, the Woodsons filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and an application for continuance. The case was automatically dismissed on December 31, 2000, according to rule 1.944. Hearing was held on the Woodsons' motions in February, and the district court treated the application for continuance as a motion to reinstate. On February 14, 2001, the district court reinstated the Woodsons' case, but denied their motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Formerly Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1.

On March 9, 2001, the Woodsons filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition, in which they added contract and tort claims arising from Regency's alleged breach of the settlement agreement. Regency, however, did not file an answer within the ten days provided by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.441(4). The Woodsons did not request a trial date, and no further discovery was conducted. The record discloses no further formal case preparation in the case until the clerk of Polk County District Court filed another 1.944 notice of dismissal on July 17, 2001.

On August 23, 2001, the Woodsons' attorney sent a reminder to Regency's counsel requesting that an answer be filed. Regency failed to respond to the reminder, and on October 31, 2001, the Woodsons filed a notice of intent to file a written application for default. Nine days later, on November 9, 2001, Regency filed its answer.

Despite the fact that Regency had filed an answer, the Woodsons filed a written application for default judgment on November 29, 2001, along with an application for continuance pursuant to rule 1.944. Hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2002, but the case was automatically dismissed pursuant to rule 1.944 for the second time on December 31, 2001. On January 8, the Woodsons filed an amended motion for continuance and reinstatement. On January 24, 2002, the district court issued its order denying the Woodsons' motion for reinstatement. The court reasoned that (1) the Woodsons had not presented grounds supporting mandatory reinstatement, (2) discretionary reinstatement was not justified under the circumstances of this case, and (3) the Woodsons had failed to make progress toward trial of the case, thus precluding either mandatory or discretionary reinstatement.

The Woodsons appeal, alleging the district court erred by (1) denying their motion to reinstate, (2) failing to rule on their motion to continue, and (3) denying their motion for default judgment.

II. Standard of Review. Our review of a district court's decision regarding reinstatement of cases dismissed under rule 1.944 is for errors at law. O'Brien v. Mullapudi, 405 N.W.2d 815, 816 (Iowa 1987). If a case is not eligible for mandatory reinstatement, the district court, in its discretion, may allow reinstatement of the action. Id. In this second scenario, we will not overturn the district court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. III. Reinstatement. Rule 1.944(6) provides two possible grounds for reinstatement. The case shall be reinstated upon a showing that the dismissal was the result of oversight, mistake, or other reasonable cause. In the absence of grounds for mandatory reinstatement the district court may, at its discretion, reinstate the case. The plaintiff must show reasonable diligence in preparing and pursuing the case for trial as a prerequisite to either mandatory or discretionary reinstatement. Id.

Woodsons make no claim that they are entitled to mandatory reinstatement. They contend the district court abused its discretion by failing to reinstate their case. The district court found "a lack of any meaningful activity on the file and a complete lack of effort to seek a new trial date." While we do not agree with this characterization of the record, we cannot conclude on this record that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate the case. After their case was reinstated on February 14, 2001, the Woodsons filed an amended petition, sent a letter encouraging Regency to file an answer, and filed a motion for default judgment when no answer was forthcoming. Based on these facts, we conclude it would have been within the district court's discretion to reinstate the Woodsons' case. We note, however, that the plaintiffs had the burden to keep their case alive and avoid automatic dismissal under rule 1.944. Ray v. Merle Hay Mall, 621 N.W.2d 696, 698 (Iowa Ct.App. 2000). The record here contains no evidence that the Woodsons requested a trial date after the February 14, 2001, reinstatement. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm on this issue.

IV. Continuance. The Woodsons have two complaints with the district court's handling of their motion to continue. First, they contend the district court erred by not holding a hearing on the motion to continue prior to the 1.944 automatic dismissal date of December 31 2001. Second, they argue the district court erred by not hearing or ruling on the motion for continuance in its January 24, 2002, order. However, the Woodsons raised neither of these issues before the district court. To preserve error when a district court fails to resolve an issue, claim, defense, or legal theory, a party must file some post-trial motion requesting the district court address the issue. See Meier v. Senecaut III, 532, 539 (Iowa 2002). Thus, error has not been preserved, and we will not reach this issue.

V. Default Judgment. The Woodsons assert the district court erred by denying their motion for default judgment. The district court's decision rested on the fact that at the time of the Woodsons' motion, Regency was no longer in default because it had filed its answer. The Woodsons provide no authority to support their argument that a party who fails to file an answer within the prescribed time remains in default even after the tardy answer is filed. We, therefore, affirm the district court's denial of the motion for default judgment. See Iowa R.App.P.6.14(1)( c) ("Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed wavier of that issue.").

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Woodson v. Regency Builders

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 28, 2003
662 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

Woodson v. Regency Builders

Case Details

Full title:SHELDON WOODSON and JANEEN WOODSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGENCY…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 28, 2003

Citations

662 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)