Donald E. Rosenbaum and Aimee L. Rosenbaum v. Kerndt Brothers Savings Bank
20-1171
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs Donald and Aimee Rosenbaum appealed dismissal of their June 2020 petition to set aside a series of five judgments entered against them in a foreclosure action by Kerndt Brothers Savings Bank.
- The underlying summary judgment was entered November 16, 2017; subsequent orders added attorney fees (Feb. 13, 2018; Apr. 15, 2019), issued a nunc pro tunc correction to interest (May 3, 2019), and a final order eliminating the one-year redemption period (Aug. 27, 2019).
- The Rosenbaums acknowledged the principal balance but sought to vacate the summary judgment and later orders, arguing various procedural and jurisdictional defects and claiming some orders were void.
- The district court dismissed the petition as untimely under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1012/1.1013 (one-year filing rule) and rejected the Rosenbaums’ collateral-attack theory.
- On appeal, the court affirmed: the one-year limitation runs from the entry of each judgment or order; the challenge to the November 2017 summary judgment filed in June 2020 was untimely; later orders were not void because the court retained jurisdiction over collateral matters.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1013 | Rosenbaums: petition is timely; one-year period should run from last order in the series. | Bank: petition filed well outside the one-year window for the earlier judgments. | Held: Untimely. One-year period runs from entry of each judgment or order; challenge to Nov. 2017 summary judgment was filed too late. |
| Whether summary judgment was a final order | Rosenbaums: summary judgment could be challenged because later orders continued issues. | Bank: summary judgment is final and triggers the one-year rule. | Held: Summary judgment is a final order; one-year clock started at entry. |
| Collateral attack on subsequent orders (voidness) | Rosenbaums: later orders are void because court’s jurisdiction had terminated. | Bank: court retained jurisdiction over attorney fees and collateral matters; orders valid. | Held: Rejected collateral attack; subsequent orders were not void. |
| Rule 1.1013 procedural compliance (filing in original action) | Rosenbaums: sought relief either collaterally or under rule 1.1013; did not separately contest final order eliminating redemption. | Bank: petition did not comply with rule 1.1013 timing and filing requirements; also raised other procedural defenses. | Held: The jurisdictional timing requirement of rule 1.1013 controls; petition dismissed as untimely—other procedural arguments not dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Dep’t Of Transp., 711 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (standard of review for dismissal under rule permitting dismissal when no recovery can be shown under any conceivable facts)
- Carter v. Carter, 957 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa 2021) (one-year limitations period under rule 1.1013 is jurisdictional)
- Hills Bank & Tr. Co. v. Converse, 772 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2009) (summary judgment is a final order)
- Iowa State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Michel, 683 N.W.2d 95 (Iowa 2004) (court may retain jurisdiction post-judgment for attorney fees and collateral matters)