*4 DANILSON, Chief Judge. (dissenting)

I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial judge essentially entered a judgment on the pleadings with the aid of the parties’ briefs, without a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, and notwithstanding the State’s answer denying most of the allegations. The State contends that error was not preserved because Bailey did not move the district court to expand its ruling by considering the appendix of evidence pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). However, our supreme court has stated:

If the court’s ruling indicates that the court considered the issue and necessarily ruled on it, even if the court’s reasoning is “incomplete or sparse,” the issue has been preserved. See Meier [ v. Senecaut , 641 N.W.2d 532, 540 (2002)]; see also Jensen v. Sattler , 696 N.W.2d 582, 585 (Iowa 2005) (finding error was preserved even though “the summary judgment record is not a model of clarity”). Meier distinguishes between the situation where error was preserved even though “the record or ruling on appeal contains incomplete findings or conclusions,” 641 N.W.2d at 539, and the situation where the issue was “not considered by” the district court and thus error was not preserved, id. at 540.

Lamasters v. State , 821 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Iowa 2012). Here, all the issues were considered and ruled upon but none of the evidence was considered. Although the supreme court denied a limited remand, such a remand would require retention of jurisdiction. I would remand this case back without retaining jurisdiction and require a different judge to consider the evidence and decide the issues anew. Consideration of the parties’ issues without considering the stipulated evidence is much akin to structural error and undermines the right to a fair trial. See Lado v. State , 804 N.W.2d 248, 252 (Iowa 2011).