*1 jurisdiction necessarily decides that it has Accordingly, the decision court cause.”). matter is remand- by proceeding This in the Because appeals vacated. instructions to dis- appeal grounds district court with ed to of an on mootness dismissal prejudice plain- case without miss the jurisdiction, an plainly involves exercise of to plaintiffs. are assessed tiffs. Costs to be implicitly subject it had court found unnecessary it disposition makes jurisdiction prior case. matter the raised these issues consider the other judgment right to attack the 1975 fendants’ in this parties depends whether tension between OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION finality subject matter principles of VACATED; jurisdiction in their favor should be resolved REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT in these circumstances. WITH INSTRUCTIONS. subject Defendants did assert the lack McCORMICK, except All Justices concur jurisdiction prior appeal. matter in the
J., HARRIS, J., specially, who concurs court Therefore the failure of this ad- part. takes no who majority dress issue in the and dissent- ing opinions cannot attributed them. be McCORMICK, (concurring spe- Justice They the trial court had demonstrated that cially). jurisdiction. clearly acted without More- over, I and result. I concur division surprise that plaintiffs cannot claim still assert this contention. II is in division one of issue agree result in the case merely rather sub- preclusion than policy favoring finality because jurisdiction. ject matter The court’s hold- ly against permit- outweighed policy ing that the mootness dismissal of defend- ting beyond jurisdiction to act its a court summary plaintiffs’ ants’ these result is also circumstances. This con- judgment judgment did not validate appli- sistent with the recent statement of question. not answer If issue does (Second) principles cable Restatement applies, validity judg- preclusion (Tent.Draft Judgments 15(1) 5,1978), No. challenged. § ment cannot 6, 1979). (TentDraft No. § judgment The doctrine a void re- subject to collateral attack is not mains exception. Lincoln Joint Stock
without See Brown, Bank v.
Land (1938) (holding that an
278 N.W. appellate jurisdiction in a
exercise sub- was conclusive on issue of jurisdiction case); in the Re-
ject matter 10(1) (1942) Judgments §
statement BLINK, Jr., (“Where jurisdiction par- Appellant, court has William jurisdiction and determines that it has ties matter, subject parties cannot over James A. McNABB and Door Overhead collaterally attack the on the Company of Des jurisdic- not have ground that the court did Inc., Appellees. matter, subject unless tion over judica- policy underlying the doctrine res No. 62625. against outweighed policy per- ta Supreme Court of Iowa. beyond jurisdic- mitting the court to act its tion.”). Jan. implicit exercise of
An subject jurisdiction.
finding of matter See (1965); 21 C.J.S.
20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § (“The (1940) 113 at 174-75
Courts § *2 DeLange, II, J. Wehr & De-
Harold Lange, Davenport, appellant. Wasker, Hoekenberg R. Louis Sullivan Ward, Moines, Ralph Des D. & Sauer McMahon, Neuman, Betty, Hellstrom & Bittner, Davenport, appellees. justice. McGiverin, Blink, Jr., appeals from William A. McNabb judgment for defendants James Des and Overhead Door Inc., equitable his action for an require defendants main- injunction to flow of surface water tain maintaining thereby property, across their neighboring land. proper drainage of affirm. presented for our. re- Three issues are view: notice plaintiff’s
1. Whether R.App.P. substantially complied with im- should have 2. Whether trial court failure to for defendants’ posed sanction interrogato- answer to an supplement their ry; and findings, correctly Rulings Opinions trial 3. Whether the plaintiff’s peti- prior to, the merits Court cause nied relief on in the above entitled during, subsequent therein, to trial tion. which were in manner adverse to the notice of I. Did Defendants, Supreme Court 6? substantially comply *3 Iowa. notified hereby You are that dispose of defendants’ con We first must Appeal Hearing will come on for and of appeal that the notice filed tention Trial in at Supreme Court the Time court has no Blink is defective and prescribed by and and in Place accord- say this case. of Defendants Supreme ance with law of said Court. requirements appeal of Iowa the notice of 6(a) were not met Harold J. DeLansre II R.App.P. because /s/ defendants, notice, which is addressed to HAROLD J. DeLANGE II body ap its that defendants are states in WEHR & DeLANGE it pealing, when in fact who is Attorneys for doing so. The notice also that de states Building 705 Kahl appeal rulings from all adverse to Davenport, Iowa 52801 Defendants defendants. filed a motion to (Emphasis added.) appeal, which sub dismiss the we ordered R.App.P. 6(a) provides Iowa in relevant the appeal. mitted for part: appeal by plaintiff filed The notice of appeal An those other than allowed as follows: 5, order rule 2 or rule under Rules Procedure, Appellate is taken per- and OF APPEAL NOTICE filing fected a notice with the clerk of DAHLIN, DAVID H. CLERK OF TO: order, judgment the court where the THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE entered, signed by decrée appellant STATE OF IOWA IN AND FOR or his attorney. specify It shall par- COUNTY SCOTT decree, ties taking appeal and the A. McNABB TO: JAMES AND OVER- judgment, part thereof appealed order or HEAD DOOR COMPANY OF DES from. appellant copy shall serve a MOINES, AND INC. TO THEIR AT- notice on each or his RALPH AND TORNEYS SAUER counsel prescribed in the manner LOUIS HOCKENBERG R.C.P. .... 82“b” hereby You and each are Our case on this issue is Hawkeye latest notified that herein the Defendants Security Ford Insurance v. Motor James A. McNabb Overhead Door 373, Company, 1972), N.W.2d 378 199 Company of Des Inc. named in previous where we declined to adhere to cause, appealed the above entitled compliance cases requiring strict hereby appeal and do from the Final rule on a notice of appeal. the content of Judgment the court entered herein and We there to then said relative Iowa spread upon the Books and Records 336, substantially R.Civ.P. which is embod- District Clerk of the said Court of the ied in our Iowa 6: County, of Iowa in and for on State Scott 1978; day September, compliance the 20 and have with the provi Substantial sufficient; appealed hereby and do all sions appeal from rule 336 is cf. Ver of. (Iowa 1971), portions Judg- of said Decree of Final meer v. Í.90 Sneller N.W.2d 389, Judgments considering with respect sufficiency ment or to find- 392. liability, damages, ings as to of the notice we content now hold injunction issued, appellant Plaintiff to have an if the intent of every appeal na- judgment may all other awards kind and from a inferred n ture, Rulings, and from all and Orders the text of the notice and if therein, Orders, appellee inhering misled from all has not been the de-
599 Therefore, required by rule 126. on July will be entertained. Cf. feet the Epper 126(a) filed a motion rule Express Agency, Inc. v. under Railway 134(a) 1957), compel answers (8 F.2d Jones son v. Cir. attorney fees in connection with the (C.A.Tex. Chaney & James Const. Co. finally motion. Defendants filed the an- 1968), F.2d liberal more rule August 17, swers to our consistent with oft construction days four before trial. Plaintiff’s motion preference disposition repeated However, purpose was never ruled on. cases the merits and not on mere of that motion was satisfied when defend- Stevens, v. technicalities. Phoenix ants problem filed answers. The 640, 432, 433-434, 127 N.W.2d sufficiency have involves the of an answer. entry (judgment and notice of not Corp. record); Discount Associates interrogatory We set out the and answer 869, Held, dispute here: *4 871. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state name, address, occupation the and tele- Id. phone every each person number of they Defendants do not contend were any knowledge information of who has compli- the prejudiced by claimed lack the matters which have been set forth in 6(a). say they with rule Defendants ance your Answer. Plaintiff’s Petition in Plaintiff, appealing. no had intention of ANSWER: case, only the filed McNabb, James A. President of Overhead specify The notice did notice Moines, Door of Des Inc. 20,1978, September as the P.O. Box 3565 Urbandale Branch say appealed only Defendants from. Des by appeal, plaintiff, notice of as filed has potential prejudice adds confu- 515/987-4591 prejudice to the record. We no sion believe response interrogatory, In to another plaintiff resulted to defendants. Because engineering also an firm fendants named appeal, intent of filed the notice expert as an witness. employed them appeal may be plaintiff to inferred. plaintiff alleged defend- petition, were not misled the defects in Davenport adja- ant McNabb owns land compliance The test the notice. substantial Defendant plaintiff. cent to that Over- minimally satisfied Hawkeye Security has McNabb’sland. head Door a business on here. claimed that construction work on changed land clarity, hold McNabb’s had Although not model water, causing flooding and flow of surface and sub- notice of was sufficient He damage plaintiff’s property. water 6(a) rule under our stantially complied with enjoin defendants from asked the to Hawkeye Security. Defendants’ mo- test in flow across changing the natural water overruled. to tion dismiss the and for an award dam- property second issue. consider We now ages. of defendants’ wit II. Should two allega- denying plaintiff’s In addition to testify prohibited nesses have been tions, McNabb in his answer to defendant ing? problem involves the failure The next petition grade proper- of his alleged answer a written fully by defendants changed, ty had not been plaintiff. interrogatory filed knew of characteristics April was set Au- On trial pur- property when McNabb’s May plaintiff submitted gust 21. On his own chased land. interrogatories to be answered
written trial, At two non-ex- defendants called both defendants under pert listed in their answers witnesses not Bainer, object Harry answer When interrogatories. did to or Defendants not called, plaintiff first witness was stated: thirty days as interrogatories within Honor, they Your before Mr. weren’t filed un- MR. DeLANGE: testifies, register I would have to Friday, Bainer til which would have done objection. interrog- In the answers to addition, good, little I or no but in have to atories, did not list Mr. Bainer honestly say that I don’t feel that having any information deal- person as a shotgun approach lawsuit, matters in this and I you’re claiming should have elicited this those.1 supplemental have no answers to person specific enough as a witness of defendants’ produce prohibit Bainer was the owner a sanction and his testi- past and knew of property mony. plaintiff and drainage of the land of The court also allowed this witness to testi- McNabb. then fy on direct and cross-examination. continuance The court at first offered a appeal, plaintiff says answer to On permit plaintiff deposi- to take Bainer’s interrogatory his first was insufficient. We response, plaintiff tion. In said: agree. that; like MR. DeLANGE: would to do interrogatory The used here is a standard however, I not want to hold the wit- do one, many filed civil cases Iowa. up I don’t to. ness if potential having names of witnesses knowl- However, after an unrecorded confer- edge alleged pleadings of the matters in the
ence, the court stated: important among the most information just The Court has now been advised that by interrogatories. *5 that can obtained plaintiff deposition wants to take the helps prevent surprise This information at witness, although of this the Court is also trial, major goal discovery a of the rules. plaintiff has taken no advised This view does not conflict with Iowa in this I’m depositions anybody of case. 143, party which states a shall not R.Civ.P. going my to withdraw offer. I’m not required actually. be to list the witnesses he going permit taking deposi- to trial, expects except expert to call at going permit testimony I to tion. am witnesses. witness, my which I believe is in Here, adequately defendants failed to an- may discretion. You continue. supplement swer or answer to proceeded testify then to for de- Bainer interrogatory. tiff’s first Plaintiff was con- by plain- and was cross-examined fronted at trial with two witnesses defend- tiff. persons ants had not revealed as who have called Erie Glaus as a When defendants any knowledge or of the mat- information testify familiarity as to his with witness to that have been set forth in ters properties in and their the two petition and in defendants’ answer. problems, plaintiff stated: water disagree with trial court and defend- Honor, Your before this DeLANGE: MR. plaintiff’s interrogatory ants and believe testifies, my again I would renew witness specific enough obligated to have was yesterday as to objection that I stated to the inter- fendants to list in their answer being previously this witness not dis- thereto, rogatory, supplement a per as that we closed names Bainer of and Glaus. to the defendant. submitted response, said: brief, the court impliedly In his asks for a plaintiff said, one, granted Schapp as was v. Chica- Well, didn’t reversal number as go Railway Company, of the answers to and North Western insist on enforcement part: (1) party duty seasonably A is under a to Iowa R.Civ.P. 125 states supplement response respect to his responded request to a A who has question directly addressed to complete discovery response with a that was (A) identity persons of hav- location duty supplement to his when made is under no ing knowledge discoverable matters . response thereafter ac- to include information quired, except as follows:
601
hand,
646,
(1968)and to
a dominant estate. On the
N.W.2d 531
Iowa
155
261
depositions
system
of the two
no
to alter the
to take the
exists
able
from a dominant estate in
witnesses.
defense
substantially
such manner
increase
as
problems,
practical
presents
two
the servient estate burden.
First, Schapp
to us on
legal.
came
and one
omitted);
(emphasis
original
and citations
pretrial
of a
interlocutory
Club,
Wilson,
Country
Leaf
Inc. v.
Oak
to inter-
sufficiency
answers
739,
Hess,
(Iowa 1977);
N.W.2d
Ditch v.
more
required
rogatories. We reversed
442,
(Iowa 1973).
Here the
complete answers before trial.
already
completed.
been
trial has
case,
proper
In a
relief will lie
the two witnesses.
has cross-examined
by injunction against
wrongful
equity
problem
is that
flow of waters.
The second
obstruction
adequate
permit
City
Page,
to make an
record to
Waverly
failed
(1898).
to be taken at
trial.
corrective action
74 N.W.
We have also
“
for a con-
remedy
‘[wjherever
Plaintiff’s
was move
stated:
a situation exists
182(a) and
principles
tinuance under
is contrary
equity
which
134, includ-
under Iowa R.Civ.P.
scope
sanctions
which can
be redressed within the
request
prohibit
action,
judicial
equity
will
a court
introducing
testimony of
two wit-
those
situation,
to meet
remedy
devise
However, plaintiff did neither.
nesses.
though
given
no
relief has
similar
been
”
Perhaps
he
deterred
trial court’s
before.’ Holden v. Construction Machin
matter. Because
attitude toward the
Company,
N.W.2d
363-64
ery
made,
pre-
he has not
motions were not
1972).
served error.
scope
equity
of our review in this
pre-
Based
the failure
case is de
novo.
See
error,
give no
we can
relief on
serve
Braverman,
Especially
though degree, testimony varied tion. The case affirmed. problem water both testified that the AFFIRMED. had existed accumulation building time of the construction of the except ALLBEE, All Justices concur Le- parking lot. HARRIS, JJ., GRAND and who dissent Court, having examined all the from division I. exhibits introduced both Plaintiff and ALLBEE, (dissenting). Justice Defendant finds that the Defendant did drainage of surface not alter the Because my conviction that the notice property waters on Plaintiff’s and fur- fatally defective I would dis- that it is obvious from an ex- ther finds Therefore, miss this I dissent from plats and from the testi- amination of division I. mony of the witnesses that this entire pot- swales area is one that contains HARRIS, JJ., join LeGRAND and drains, tile or artificial holes and without dissent. subject to water accumulation. This finds that Plaintiff has Court therefore by preponderance prove
failed to action on behalf of
evidence
Defendant altered the natural Plaintiff’s.proper-
of surface waters
ty- ;