IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1555
Filed October 12, 2016
LEWIS ATCHISON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
LARAMIE G. SHAFFER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J. Moon,
Judge.
The plaintiff appeals from the district court’s ruling it lacked authority to
reinstate his case. AFFIRMED.
Eric M. Updegraff of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Keith R.Tucker of Forsyth Law Office, Estherville, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Lewis Atchison appeals from the district court’s ruling that it lacked
authority to reinstate his case against Laramie Shaffer.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On December 19, 2011, Atchison filed a suit against Shaffer, claiming
Shaffer had caused him physical injury. Trial was originally scheduled to begin
on May 21, 2013. Atchison obtained new counsel in the months leading up to
trial, and his new counsel requested a continuance. It was granted, and the trial
date was set for October 15th.
In July 2013, Atchison received a dismissal notice, pursuant to Iowa Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.944. The notice advised that Atchison’s case would be
dismissed if it was not tried by January 1, 2014. Notwithstanding, on the eve of
the October 15th trial date, Atchison requested another continuance. The court
granted the request—noting that the grant had no effect “on the issue of
automatic dismissal by the Clerk for failure to complete the trial in this matter in
the period allowed by the timelines”—and the trial was reset for March 24, 2014.
On January 7, 2014, the clerk filed notice that Atchison’s case was
dismissed without prejudice on “01/07/2014” pursuant to rule 1.944.
On July 7, 2014, Atchison filed an application for reinstatement, pursuant
to rule 1.944(6). The rule requires that the application be filed “within six months
from the date of dismissal.”
Shaffer resisted Atchison’s application, and the district court held a
hearing on the matter.
3
In its order, the court stated that Atchison’s case had been automatically
dismissed on January 1, 2014, so his July 7th application for reinstatement was
time-barred for being outside the six-month window provided in rule 1.944(6).
The court held it had “no authority’’ to reinstate the case and denied Atchison’s
request. Atchison appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
Questions of jurisdiction and authority are legal issues; we review them for
correction of errors at law. In re Marriage of Engler, 532 N.W.2d 747, 748 (Iowa
1985).
III. Discussion.
On appeal, Atchison challenges the district court’s ruling that his case was
automatically dismissed on January 1st rather than on January 7th, as the order
from the clerk stated. In the alternative, Atchison maintains his six months to file
for reinstatement did not begin until he received notice of the dismissal.
Atchison’s stance is at odds with current case law. In Fankell v. Schober,
350 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984), the court noted that dismissal under
the rule (then rule 215.1) “is automatic, and needs no order of dismissal.” See,
e.g., Wilimek v. Danker, 671 N.W.2d 25, 27 (Iowa 2003) (stating dismissals
subject to rule 1.944 are automatic, and dismissal occurs by operation of law);
Brown v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 272 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Iowa 1978) (“We have also
established that when the time for dismissal arrives, the case is dismissed
automatically without formal action by either the court or the clerk. Failure to
note the dismissal of record does not save the case.”). As such, we agree with
the district court that Atchison’s case was automatically dismissed on January 1,
4
2014, notwithstanding the clerk’s order stating that it was dismissed on January
7th.
Moreover, in Fankell, the court states, “The automatic dismissal date . . . is
the date from which the six-month period is to be calculated in this case.” 350
N.W.2d at 223. Once the six-month period has ended, “[t]he district court was
without authority to reinstate the case.” Id.
Insofar as Atchison asks us to overturn current case law or interpret rule
1.944 differently, we note that we are bound by supreme court precedent. See
State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We are not at
liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”).
We find no error in the district court’s ruling that Atchison’s claim was
automatically dismissed on January 1, 2014, and the six-month period to apply
for reinstatement ended on July 1, 2014. As the district court ruled, it was
without authority to reinstate his claim. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.