IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 15–2213
Filed May 5, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF M.W., Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired,
M.W.,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Christine
Boyer, Judicial Hospitalization Referee and Marsha Bergan, District
Court Judge.
A patient involuntarily committed by a judicial hospitalization
referee’s order appeals his commitment. DECISION OF COURT OF
APPEALS VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Gretchen Witte Kraemer,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellant State.
Willie E. Townsend, Coralville, for appellee.
2
WIGGINS, Justice.
The State seeks further review following the court of appeals
decision vacating the judicial hospitalization referee’s involuntary
hospitalization order. See Iowa Code ch. 229 (2015). The State
challenges the court of appeals’ conclusion that it had jurisdiction to
hear the appeal. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals and
dismiss the appeal because neither the referee’s order issued on
December 8, 2015, nor the district court’s order issued on December 9
are appealable as a matter of right pursuant to Iowa Rules of Appellate
Procedure 6.103.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
M.W. is an adult who has a history of mental illness. Beginning in
July 2014, M.W.’s guardian had him hospitalized for over a year at the
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC). In 2015, M.W.’s
guardian placed him in Chatham Oaks, an Iowa City residential care
facility. On December 4, M.W. attempted to return to the UIHC by
walking approximately three miles through freezing temperatures while
dressed unsuitably for the weather. After arriving at the UIHC, M.W.
refused medications. A doctor at the UIHC, who was familiar with M.W.
from the previous hospitalization, began involuntary commitment
proceedings in order to compel treatment.
The court scheduled a hearing for December 8. M.W. was served
with a notice for the hearing but his guardian was not. The hearing was
held on December 8. M.W.’s attorney moved to continue the hearing
because the guardian had not been notified and was not present. The
judicial hospitalization referee denied the motion, found M.W. was
seriously mentally impaired, and ordered M.W. committed to the UIHC.
3
M.W.’s attorney appealed to the district court from the denial of his
motion to continue. On December 9, the district court held a brief
hearing on the appeal and issued a ruling that same day. The district
court determined that the referee did not abuse her discretion in denying
M.W.’s motion to continue and declined to remand the case to the referee
for another hearing. The district court further concluded Iowa Code
chapter 229 does not require a guardian be served with a notice before
the hearing, explaining such a notice would be contrary to the purpose of
the time requirement in chapter 229 and delay a respondent’s return to
either liberty or essential mental health treatment. Finally, the court
noted M.W. had the right to challenge the ruling, as well as all of the
other rulings of the referee at a de novo hearing on the record before the
district court. Accordingly, the district court scheduled a de novo
hearing for December 22.
On December 18, however, the UIHC requested M.W.’s release
from involuntary hospitalization. The UIHC stated M.W. was compliant
with his medications, and his guardian agreed with the new treatment
plan. The district court thus dismissed the case. On December 21,
M.W.’s attorney filed a withdrawal of appeal, stating, “[T]here is no
reason to continue the legal process at the district court level, but will
continue at the appellate court level.” The court did not cancel the
December 22 hearing, and when the parties did not appear, the district
court entered an order stating that “the hearing in this matter [was] not
pursued before the district court,” and therefore, the court would take no
further action in the matter.
On December 23, M.W. filed a notice of appeal to the supreme
court indicating he was appealing the December 8 referee order and the
December 9 district court order. On our own motion, we ordered the
4
parties to file statements on jurisdiction. We explained that we were
“concerned as to whether [we have] jurisdiction over the respondent’s
appeal” because M.W. filed a withdrawal of appeal to the district court on
December 21, and no one appeared at the December 22 hearing.
After receiving the parties’ statements, we ordered the appeal
proceed to briefing, but directed the parties to further develop their
arguments on jurisdiction and mootness. We then transferred the case
to the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that it had jurisdiction
over the appeal because the referee’s order of commitment was a final
appealable order. The court of appeals also held that, although the case
was moot because the district court had already dismissed the
commitment proceedings against M.W., it found exceptions to the
mootness doctrine. Finally, the court of appeals held M.W.’s guardian
was entitled to notice of the commitment proceedings and thus vacated
the referee’s order.
The State applied for further review, which we granted.
II. Issue.
M.W. raises several issues on appeal. Our first duty is to
determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider and decide the
appeal on its merits. Lloyd v. State, 251 N.W.2d 551, 558 (Iowa 1977).
We find that jurisdiction is dispositive of this appeal, and therefore, we
do not reach the merits.
III. Jurisdiction.
M.W. appeals two separate rulings made in the trial court. First,
he appeals the referee’s order of December 8, denying the motion to
continue and committing M.W. to the UIHC after finding he was seriously
mentally impaired. Second, he appeals the district court’s order of
December 9, affirming the denial of the continuance.
5
The State contends appellate jurisdiction is lacking because M.W.
abandoned appellate review when he withdrew his appeal to the district
court on December 21 and failed to appear at the hearing on
December 22. The State argues that the referee’s order is not a final
appealable order because Iowa Code section 229.21(3) provides that
respondents are to appeal such orders to the district court. The State
also argues that the district court ruling of December 9 is not a final or
interlocutory order for the purpose of appellate review.
A. The Referee’s December 8 Order. M.W. asked the referee to
continue the hearing on December 8 because no one served M.W.’s
guardian with notice of the hearing. The referee denied the continuance,
concluding there was no requirement the guardian be served before the
hearing. The referee then decided the merits and committed M.W. to the
UIHC after finding he was seriously mentally impaired. M.W. is
appealing this order directly to the supreme court.
Under our appellate rules, we have jurisdiction to review “[a]ll final
orders and judgments of the district court involving the merits or
materially affecting the final decision.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.103; see also In
re Melodie L., 591 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1999). Thus, our task is to
determine whether the denial of the continuance and the commitment
order by the referee constituted a final judgment of the district court for
the purpose of bringing an appeal to this court.
Iowa Code section 229.21 prescribes the general procedures for an
involuntary hospitalization hearing before a judicial hospitalization
referee.
When an application for involuntary hospitalization . . . is
filed with the clerk of the district court in any county for
which a judicial hospitalization referee has been appointed,
and no district judge, district associate judge, or magistrate
6
who is admitted to the practice of law in this state is
accessible, . . . [t]he referee shall discharge all of the duties
imposed upon the court by sections 229.7 to 229.22 . . . in
the proceeding so initiated. Subject to the provisions of
subsection 4, orders issued by a referee, in discharge of
duties imposed under this section, shall have the same force
and effect as if ordered by a district judge.
Iowa Code § 229.21(2).
Iowa Code section 229.21(3) governs the process for requesting an
appeal to the district court.
Any respondent with respect to whom the magistrate or
judicial hospitalization referee has found the contention that
the respondent is seriously mentally impaired . . . may
appeal from the magistrate’s or referee’s finding to a judge of
the district court by giving the clerk notice in writing, within
ten days after the magistrate’s or referee’s finding is made,
that an appeal is taken.
Id. § 229.21(3)(a).
An order of a magistrate or judicial hospitalization referee
with a finding that the person is seriously mentally impaired
. . . shall include the following notice, located conspicuously
on the face of the order:
NOTE: The respondent may appeal from this
order to a judge of the district court by giving written
notice of the appeal to the clerk of the district court
within ten days after the date of this order. The appeal
may be signed by the respondent or by the
respondent’s next friend, guardian, or attorney. For a
more complete description of the respondent’s appeal
rights, consult section 229.21 of the Code of Iowa or
an attorney.
Id. § 229.21(3)(b). “When appealed, the matter shall stand for trial de
novo. Upon appeal, the court shall schedule a hospitalization or
commitment hearing before a district judge at the earliest practicable
time.” Id. § 229.21(3)(c). The Code further provides that in addition to a
referee’s order finding a “respondent is seriously mentally impaired”
pursuant to section 229.21(3)(a), “[a]ny respondent with respect to whom
the magistrate or judicial hospitalization referee has held a placement
7
hearing and has entered a placement order may appeal the order to a
judge of the district court.” Id. at § 229.21(3)(d).
M.W. contends he was not required to appeal to the district court
before seeking review from our court, relying in part on our decision in
Melodie L., 591 N.W.2d 4. In Melodie L., we considered the authority of a
hospital referee to dismiss a proceeding in response to a request by a
patient. Melodie L., 591 N.W.2d at 7.
The hospital referee found Melodie L. to be seriously mentally
impaired after a hearing. Id. at 5. After being hospitalized for several
months, the referee reviewed Melodie L.’s condition and ordered her
transferred to a group home. Id. at 6. After Melodie L. was transferred,
she filed an application to be released from inpatient treatment. Id. The
referee held a hearing and found insufficient evidence that Melodie L.
continued to be seriously mentally impaired, and the referee ordered her
released. Id. The county attorney filed an appeal of that order to the
district judge, who dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Id. The
county attorney then appealed both the district court’s ruling on the lack
of jurisdiction for appeal and the decision of the judicial referee to the
supreme court. Id.
On appeal, Melodie L. claimed the applicant in an involuntary
commitment proceeding has no statutory right to appeal a decision to the
district court judge, and thus, the district court judge was correct in
finding no jurisdiction. Id. We agreed with Melodie L. that Iowa Code
section 229.21(3) only allowed the respondent to appeal the referee’s
decision to the district court, not the applicant. Id.
With respect to the county attorney’s appeal from the referee’s
order itself, however, we held the supreme court had jurisdiction over the
appeal. Id. at 7. We concluded that the referee’s order for Melodie L. to
8
be released was a final order or judgment. Id. We explained that referee
orders are final orders because the statute grants them the “same force
and effect as if ordered by a district judge.” Id. (quoting Iowa Code
§ 229.21(2)). Further, we held that because the legislature did not
provide for district court review of orders entered by referees, except for
commitment orders under section 229.21(3), the “lack of review reveals
that an order for dismissal by the referee constitutes a final judgment for
the purposes of appeal.” Id. Thus, we found the appeal to be properly
before us. Id.
Melodie L. is distinguishable from this case because this appeal by
the respondent, M.W., falls under section 229.21(3), whereas the
applicant’s appeal in Melodie L. did not. The legislature has provided for
district court review of a respondent’s appeal of a referee’s commitment
or placement order. See Iowa Code § 229.21(3)(a), (d). In this case, there
is no lack of review to justify constituting a referee’s order a final
judgment for the purposes of appeal as we held in Melodie L. Thus, the
jurisdiction of this appeal lies within the district court and not our court.
To support our conclusion in Melodie L., we cited two cases in
which we previously considered whether “juvenile court referees and
probate referees could issue final decisions for the purpose of appeal.”
Melodie L., 591 N.W.2d at 7. In regards to juvenile court referees, we
held they “had concurrent jurisdiction to issue a final decision for the
purposes of appeal since our legislature, in defining the authority of a
referee, specified the referee had ‘the same jurisdiction to . . . issue
orders . . . as the judge of the juvenile court.’ ” Id. (quoting In re D.W.K.,
365 N.W.2d 32, 33–34 (Iowa 1985)); Iowa Code § 602.7103(2) (Supp.
1983). With respect to probate referees, on the other hand, we found the
governing statute did not contain similar language expressly granting
9
probate referees jurisdiction to enter final decisions for the purpose of
appeal. Melodie L., 591 N.W.2d at 7 (citing In re Estate of Willis, 418
N.W.2d 857, 859–60 (Iowa 1988)).
In the case In re Guardianship of B.J.P., 613 N.W.2d 670 (Iowa
2000), we did not disturb our decision in Willis, but held the legislature
granted associate probate judges the same jurisdiction as referees in
addition to “ ‘jurisdiction’ to perform ‘judicial functions as the court
prescribes,’ ” giving associate probate judges jurisdiction to enter final
judgments for the purpose of appellate review. Id. (quoting Iowa Code
§ 633.20(3) (1997)). To support our holding, we noted that “we recently
held that a hospitalization referee had statutory authority to enter final
decisions for the purposes of appellate review” and mentioned that
section 229.21(2) provides a referee’s orders have the “same force and
effect as if ordered by a district judge.” Id. at 673 (quoting Melodie L.,
591 N.W.2d at 7); Iowa Code § 229.21(2) (2015)). In finding that orders
of the associate probate judges are final for the purpose of appellate
review, we also reasoned the legislature had “failed to establish a
procedure for the district court to review orders by an associate probate
judge,” and “[a]s in D.W.K. and Melodie L., this indicates orders by an
associate probate judge are final.” Guardianship of B.J.P., 613 N.W.2d at
673.
Importantly, the legislature has provided for district court review of
a judicial hospitalization referee’s commitment or placement order when
a respondent appeals. See Iowa Code § 229.21(3)(a), (d). This indicates
that an order by a judicial hospitalization referee is not final when a
respondent appeals from it. Therefore, a respondent’s remedy is an
appeal to the district court as provided by section 229.21(3).
10
We find support for our conclusion that the respondent in this
case must appeal the referee’s order to the district court when
considering other areas of our law in which the district court has
appellate jurisdiction. For example, in the establishment and
improvement of drainage districts, “Any person aggrieved may appeal
from any final action of the board in relation to any matter involving the
person’s rights, to the district court of the county in which the
proceeding was held.” Iowa Code § 468.83(1).
In the assessment and valuation of property,
Appeals may be taken from the action of the local board of
review with reference to protests of assessment, to the
district court of the county in which the board holds its
sessions . . . . Appeals may be taken from the action of the
property assessment appeal board to the district court of the
county where the property which is the subject of the appeal
is located within twenty days after the letter of disposition of
the appeal by the property assessment appeal board is
postmarked to the appellant. . . . The assessor shall have
the same right to appeal and in the same manner as an
individual taxpayer, public body, or other public officer as
provided in section 441.42.
Id. § 441.38(1).
Finally, in the appeal of simple misdemeanors,
A party takes an appeal by giving notice orally to the
magistrate at the time judgment is rendered that the party
appeals or by filing with the clerk of the district court not
later than ten days after judgment is rendered a written
notice of appeal.
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.73(1). In all of these contexts, as in section 229.21(3),
the Code prescribes appellate jurisdiction within the district court for
certain parties and does not provide an avenue for appellants to bypass
that jurisdiction.
11
B. The District Court’s December 9 Order. In his appeal of the
referee’s order of December 8 to the district court, M.W. asked the
district court for the following relief:
WHEREFORE, the Respondent in this matter requests
the court grant his motion to continue and require the
Guardian to be properly served in this matter and a hearing
to be conducted at the Referee level where the Guardian may
be heard.
In its ruling, the district court held Iowa Code chapter 229 does
not require that a guardian be served with a notice before the hearing;
thus, the referee did not abuse her discretion in denying M.W.’s motion
to continue. The district court also found M.W. had the right to
challenge the ruling, as well as all of the other rulings of the referee at a
de novo hearing on the record before the district court. The district court
judge scheduled a de novo hearing for December 22.
The issue here is whether the district court’s December 9 order is a
final order allowing for an appeal under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure
6.103.
A final judgment or decision is one that finally
adjudicates the rights of the parties. It must put it beyond
the power of the court which made it to place the parties in
their original position. A ruling or order is interlocutory if it is
not finally decisive of the case.
Johnson v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 257 Iowa 810, 812, 134 N.W.2d
916, 918 (1965).
The district court judge acknowledged her decision was not a final
decision on the issues. She specifically noted in her ruling that M.W.
had the right to challenge the ruling, as well as all of the other rulings of
the referee at the December 22 hearing. Therefore, we find the district
court order of December 9 is not a final order that M.W. can appeal as a
12
matter of right. M.W. can only appeal the district court order of
December 9 if it is appealable as an interlocutory order.
Our appellate rules allow us to treat a notice of appeal as an
application for interlocutory appeal. Iowa R. App. P. 6.108. In the past,
when a party has filed a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order, we
have treated the notice of appeal as an application for interlocutory
appeal, granted the application, and decided the appeal. Sweeney v. City
of Bettendorf, 762 N.W.2d 873, 876–77 (Iowa 2009). The State claims the
December 9 order is not appealable as an interlocutory order. However,
we need not reach this issue because the case is no longer pending in the
district court.
On December 21, M.W. withdrew his appeal to the district court
after the UIHC discharged him from its care. When a party abandons an
appeal, he or she can no longer prosecute the appeal for the appellate
court has lost jurisdiction of the matter. Dewey v. Pierce, 69 Iowa 81,
82–83, 28 N.W. 445, 445 (1886). Here, the district court was the
appellate court. When M.W. withdrew his appeal, the district court lost
jurisdiction, and the case was no longer pending in the district court.
Granting M.W. an interlocutory appeal is no longer feasible because
M.W.’s case is no longer being prosecuted in the district court.
Accordingly, the December 9 district court order is not appealable
as a matter of right, and we are unable to convert the notice of appeal to
an application for interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we must dismiss
M.W.’s appeal of the December 9 district court order.
IV. Disposition.
We conclude M.W., the respondent in this case, must first appeal
the judicial hospitalization referee’s order finding him seriously mentally
impaired to the district court according to section 229.21(3) of the Iowa
13
Code. Only after the district court enters a final order or judgment with
respect to finding M.W. seriously mentally impaired or his placement,
would we have jurisdiction to review this case. We further conclude that
the district court’s December 9 order was not appealable as a matter of
right. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and
dismiss the appeal.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; APPEAL
DISMISSED.
All justices concur except Appel, J., who dissents.
14
#15–2213, In re M.W.
APPEL, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In In re Melodie L., we considered an appeal by the state of a
dismissal of an involuntary commitment proceeding by a referee. 591
N.W.2d 4, 5 (Iowa 1999). We held that the order was not interlocutory
because of the language of Iowa Code section 229.21(2) (1997). Id. at 7.
In particular, we cited the provision of the statute that orders issued by
referees shall “have the ‘same force and effect as if ordered by a district
judge.’ ” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 229.21(2)).
Our main rationale in Melodie L. was that the hospitalization
referee has “concurrent jurisdiction” with the district court in holding an
involuntary committal hearing. Id. Because a referee’s commitment
order is the equivalent of a district court order, it is appealable. Id.
It is true that in Melodie L., the court, in addition to the above
noted language, further observed that the state did not otherwise have a
basis for appealing a referee’s order refusing commitment. Id. But the
main rationale in Melodie L. is not so qualified. Iowa Code section
229.21(2) does not say an order of a referee shall be treated as an order
of the district court “if involuntary commitment is denied.” The majority
is, in effect, adding these words to the statute. But the statute
unambiguously applies to all orders of referees whether or not
commitment results.
The proposition that a finding of “concurrent jurisdiction” is
sufficient, by itself, to support determining that a referee’s order is final
and appealable is also supported by In re D.W.K., 365 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa
1985). In that case, we held that a juvenile court referee’s order was
final because the referee was granted concurrent jurisdiction by Iowa
15
Code section 602.7103(2) (1983 Supp.). Id. at 33–34. Importantly, the
juvenile court referee’s order was appealable to juvenile court under Iowa
Code section 602.7103(3). Id. at 34. Thus, there was in fact another
potential avenue of appeal in D.W.K. Nonetheless, we held that
concurrent jurisdiction was sufficient to establish that a juvenile court
referee’s order was final, noting, “Because no review [by the juvenile
court] was requested in this case, the referee’s order is final and we have
jurisdiction of the appeal.” Id.
The approach in D.W.K. to “concurrent jurisdiction” was utilized in
Melodie L. and formed the basis of the court of appeals opinion in this
case. 591 N.W.2d at 7. I would leave the approach undisturbed rather
than reengineer the statute and our caselaw.
On the merits, I would hold that M.W.’s guardian was entitled to
notice. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.305(3) requires notice to the
guardian unless M.W. was confined at a state hospital for the mentally
ill. At the time of the hearing, M.W. was not so confined. Thus, notice
should have been afforded to M.W.’s guardian.