*1 26
cited, Second, departure gen- only justification given by no basis for from the the denying eral rule the ease before the court for can be seen us. continuance lacks error real true assignment of is without merit. merit. It is the case had been on the docket “for months.” The argues also Baugh III. that even attempt, however, court made no to ascribe correctly prevented if the district court him any delay Baugh. unreasonable to It ap- representing corporation, from the it pears from the record that it could not. him granted should have a brief continu Moreover, apparent no consideration was attorney. ance to secure an Our review of given possibility adjourn- of a brief such a claim is limited. Given the broad ment Baugh’s request. to accommodate grant discretion vested in district courts to appear weighed Nor does it that the court continuances, deny or we will reverse impact the relative of a continuance on the when that discretion is abused. Hawkeye likely prejudice bank Baugh to Mathew, Bank v. & Trust Co. 373 N.W.2d Farms, Family Inc. 1985). (Iowa 129 We measure the persuaded We are the trial court the court’s by reasonableness of decision Baugh abused its when it discretion denied Birkestrand, the rule stated in v. State 239 a brief to continuance secure counsel for 1976): (Iowa N.W.2d 353 corporation. Accordingly, we reverse Where a motion for continuance is the decision of the district court and re- delay, alleging filed without a cause not proceedings mand for further consistent stemming the movant’s own from fault with opinion. this court negligence, or must determine REVERSED AND REMANDED. justice whether substantial will be more nearly by granting request. obtained when, Injustice may appear
Id. at 360. reasons,” “weighty
less than a court denies thereby prevents party continuance and being present
from at trial. In re Estate 183, 185-86, Rogers, 226 Iowa N.W. of (1939). CORPORATION, BRITT-TECH A compel Two factors reversal in the case Appellant, Corporation, First, before us. inaction the court and opposing directly to counsel led the sur- AMERICAN MAGNETICS CORPORA when, prise experienced by Baugh on the TION, Corporation, A trial, day prevented he was from advo- Co., Ltd., Development Corporation, A cating corporation. for the The record re- Appellees. Baugh’s pretrial pleadings veals that were .by met with no resistance court or counsel. No. 89-619. Baugh Although clearly was Russell not a Supreme Court of Iowa. suit, named defendant in was he who trial-setting received notice of the confer- 21, 1990. Nov. fixing Baugh ence and orders trial dates. successfully behalf moved—on of the cor-
poration judge originally recuse as- —to signed Again, to hear case. neither objected Baugh’s par- nor counsel
ticipation litigation. in the From this Baugh
record we think could have reason-
ably empowered believed that he
represent corporation. unexpected- To
ly pull rug out from under him on the
day of trial smacks unfairness. *2 Cohrt, Wa-
Larry of Swisher & J. Cohrt terloo, appellant. for M. Ran- A. Boehlert and Ronald Jeffrey Duffield, Lorentzen, Patterson, Tim- kin of mons, Irish, Ordway, Becker & Des On Britt-Tech filed this Moines, appellee petition in equity claiming both contribu- Corp. tion and indemnification Development Cheryl Mosier, Thomas, L. Weber of *3 Company.1 Dutton, Staack, Beatty, Waterloo, Braun & appellee City for River Devel. Co. Defendants answered and later filed mo- summary tions for judgment. Although HARRIS, by P.J., Considered and the motions specificity lack some it is clear LARSON, SCHULTZ, CARTER, and were limited to Britt-Tech’s NEUMAN, JJ. claims for contribution. There was no chal- HARRIS, lenge to Britt-Tech’s claims indemnity. Justice. for The district court so understood the mo- Plaintiff manufacturer brought this ac- tions and only addressed the claims for tion for both contribution indemnity and contribution. settling wrongful after a death action. Summary judgment was entered in favor granted The trial summary judg- defendants, of the one which supplied com- inment favor of Magnetics both American ponent parts manufacturer, to the and one City upon finding a that Britt- a dealer which sold the item to the consum- comply Tech did not with Iowa Code sec- er. We vacate the decision of the court of (1985). tion 668.6 We transferred the case appeals. We affirm the district court and to the appeals par- court of which affirmed remand. tial summary judgment in favor of defen- underlying
The wrongful death City action dant River partial but reversed the August was filed in 1982 for the estate of summary judgment in favor of defendant Hardy. Hardy Duane was electrocuted Magnetics. The case is before 7, 1982, using power June while a washer us on further review. by manufactured Britt-Tech. The electro- I. Although Britt-Tech contends
cution resulted from an electrical short
otherwise it is
chapter
clear that Iowa Code
which existed within a transformer manu-
(1989)
applicable
668
to its contribution
Magnetics.
factured
argues
claims. Britt-Tech
chapter
that the
purchased by
transformer was
Britt-Tech
apply
does not
underlying
because the
suit
from American
and installed
2,
brought by Hardy’s
was
August
estate
component
without alteration
a
part
as
1982, prior
chapter’s
power
effective date.
City Develop-
washer. River
Company purchased
ment
the washer from
rejecting
In
position,
Britt-Tech’s
the tri-
Britt-Tech and
Hardy.
sold it to
correctly
al court
anticipated
holding our
juryA
verdict
Hardy’s
was entered for
Iowa National Mutual Insurance
v.Co.
estate but was vacated when the court Granneman,
(Iowa 1989).
29 remise, Hardy hereby are two alternative The Estate of does There recoveries. discharge forever Britt-Tech release and recovery. In order to successful- routes to Corporation, assigns, its successors and one, re- ly travel the first Britt-Tech was persons, corpora- and all other firms or liability of Ameri- quired discharge tions, known or unknown.... prior River to June can and 7, (when two-year the estate’s statute The trial court held that the release exe- expired). But on that date of limitations Hardy cuted between Britt-Tech and the Hardy disputing still satisfy specificity Britt-Tech was re- estate did not Although spelled claim. an adverse verdict quirements estate out Aid Insurance January Britt- N.W.2d 631 County, had been returned v. Davis Co. *4 (Iowa 1988), long a case after sought judgment a not- decided Tech and obtained seeking con- Britt-Tech chose its method of withstanding the Thus Britt-Tech verdict. held in tribution. We Aid: the court prevailing party as the until stood 668.7, in appeals interpretation of decision In we our of section require a a writ- favor rule which would alone, of sec Taken the constraints specific iden- ten release to include some 668.6(3)(a) leave tort defen tion seem to re- tification of the tortfeasors to be impossibly in difficult dilemma of dants the for them dis- leased order to be abandoning either their defense of the suit charged. the course would While easier The their chance to seek contribution. or require naming parties, these we would desperate however when is not so situation require rigid not such a rule if are alternative is considered. a second available sufficiently in the otherwise identified possibility the of legislature The foresaw parties that the the release manner to might under situations which arise unfair would know who was to be benefited. provided therefore the first alternative and might include such designations Such 668.6(3)(b). a second section “employers,” “partners” or classes as alternative, may require under Iowa Code this rule The second “officers.” While 668.6(3)(b), seeking evidentiary hearings to determine the allows those section class, provides needed of the it agree discharge liability members contribution to rule, general flexibility. Under this is person the from whom contribution of person, designation “any such as other pending and sought while the action is corporation” not suffi- firm or would (within year) one seek contribu- thereafter to be dis- ciently identify the tortfeasors qualify under the second alterna- tion. To charged. tive, however, seeking the one contribution discharge liability the of take care to must Id. at 633-34. person from whom contribution is for the Britt-Tech relies on Aid the release must be sought. To do so is admissi principle that extrinsic evidence Iowa section drawn with a view to Code parties in whether the ble to determine 668.7.3 Ameri discharge River and tended to Magnetics. Britt-Tech claims by Britt-Tech from can Id.
The release obtained (the by Britt- payment extrinsic evidence Hardy estate stated: rendered, discharge liability pending of the judgment has not been final. If sought _ person is enforceable is and claim for contribution whom contribution from following upon agree- one of the sets satisfaction of year after the date of within one of conditions: discharged liability and ment must have (a) bringing person the action for con- The action for contribution. commenced the liability discharged the of tribution must have person whom contribution is from provides: 3. Section 668.7 period by payment within the of the made sue, release, similar not to or A covenant applicable to the claim- of limitations statute and a agreement into a claimant entered right and must have com- ant’s of action discharges person all person from liable contribution within menced the action for contribution, liability dis- but .it does not payment. year after the date of that one upon charge any persons liable other (b) person seeking must contribution The provides. same claim unless it so agreed claimant have while the action of the Tech for of the claim—more than its actively 100% 668 insofar as achieving share) by identifying satisfies Aid the re- the extinction parties parties. leased from whom it now seeks contribution. The release here was almost identical to agree, We and affirm the trial court in the one we held to be insufficient in Aid. sustaining summary the motions for judg- concluding The trial court was correct in ment Britt-Tech’s claims for contri- identify did not either American bution. The case must be remanded for City. or River For reasons it must have proceedings further on Britt-Tech’s claims sufficient, legislature deemed struc- for indemnification. sufficiency tured the of a release on its DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS wording, subjective not on the intent of the VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDG- parties. agree We with the trial court that MENT AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. qualify release was not sufficient to under section 668.7. CARTER, except All Justices concur insufficiency of the release is J., specially. who concurs also answer to another of Britt-Tech’s con CARTER, (concurring specially). Justice argued tentions. It running that the *5 my As indicated in in dissent Aid the statute Insur of limitations renders both 631, County, ance Co. v. Davis Magnetics American N.W.2d City and River free of (Iowa 1988), I liability applying believe that in underlying on the claim. But (1989) again, Iowa section legislature pinned right identity Code 668.7 has parties may to seek of released sufficiency by parol contribution on the be shown release, I theory not some other of de evidence. also believe that may “extinguished” fense. be purposes of section 668.5(2) any without release if all conceiva joinWe sympathizing the trial court in damages paid ble have in been full. In the with Britt-Tech’s difficult dilemma. When case, however, present any discharge of estate, Hardy prior sued party from whom contribution is enactment of 668 or our decision in 668.6(3). untimely under section Aid, impetus there bring- was no for then precludes That right circumstance of con ing Magnetics or River into I tribution. therefore concur in the result. pointed the suit. trial As the out exceptionally thoughtful ruling: its estate, injured party, Hardy’s
When the case,
brought original suit in the Britt-
Tech cross-petitioned could have Ameri- City Develop-
can strategic
ment. For reasons Britt-Tech may well have decided to defend alone. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL Procedures for contribution were sub- ETHICS AND THE CONDUCT OF stantially prior July different 1984. ASSOCIATION, BAR IOWA STATE No criticism leveled at Britt-Tech for Appellant, proceeded. the manner in it which When game” the “rules of the ball were HALL, Appellee. 1, 1984, James W. changed as of Britt-Tech glove, found itself left field with no No. 90-1059. so-to-speak. bring It could not Supreme Court of Iowa. City Development or River case, original into it could not know Nov. content Aid decision and advantage mutually wanted to take of a
negotiated Nevertheless, settlement. requirements did meet not