LESLIE COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TERRY VENTLING and WANDA VENTLING, Defendants-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-269 / 08-0767
Filed May 6, 2009
LESLIE COOPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
TERRY VENTLING and
WANDA VENTLING,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Peter A. Keller,
Judge.
Appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a petition to vacate or modify a
judgment. AFFIRMED.
James Cook, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Mark Hanson of Whitfield & Eddy, Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Plaintiff-appellant, Leslie Cooper, appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of her petition to vacate or modify a judgment on the basis that the
court did not have jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND. Cooper filed a petition for declaratory judgment against
defendants-appellees, Terry and Wanda Ventling. The district court ruled on the
petition on March 12, 2007. On February 18, 2008, Cooper filed a petition to
vacate or modify the judgment. The petition showed copies to: Mark Hanson,
Esq., Attorney for the Ventlings. Cooper obtained an order setting the matter for
hearing on April 4, 2008. The ruling provided that copies of it should be mailed to
all parties ten days prior to the hearing. A note on the notice indicates it was sent
to Hanson.
Hanson, on behalf of Ventlings, filed a “Rule 1.421 Pre-answer
Motion,” contending the court lacked both subject matter and personal
jurisdiction, and there was an insufficiency of service, as well as claiming that
Cooper’s petition failed to state a cause of action, and asking that the petition be
dismissed.
On April 4, 2008, the district court found it had no jurisdiction, as the
petition was not filed and served within one year of the ruling that Cooper sought
to vacate, and dismissed the petition. On May 8, 2008, Cooper filed a notice of
appeal, contending he appealed from “The Ruling regarding plaintiff’s petition for
declaratory judgment issued March 12, 2007, and subsequent ruling sustaining
defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition to vacate or
modify judgment filed April 4, 2008.”
3
The procedure for vacating or modifying judgment is defined in Iowa Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.1013, which provides in applicable part:
Rule 1.1013. Procedure for vacating or modifying judgment
A petition for relief under rule 1.1012 [defining the grounds
for vacating or modifying judgment] must be filed and served in the
original action within one year after the entry of the judgment or
order involved. It shall state the grounds for relief, and, if it seeks a
new trial, show that they were not and could not have been
discovered in time to proceed under rule 1.977 or 1.1004. If the
pleadings in the original action did not allege a meritorious action or
defense the petition shall do so. It shall be supported by affidavit
as provided in rule 1.413(3).
....
1.1013(2) Notice. The petitioner must serve the adverse
party with an original notice and petition in the manner provided in
rules 1.301 through 1.315, located in division III of the rules in this
chapter.
There is no evidence that an original notice and petition were served in
accordance with rules 1.301 through 1.315 on the Ventlings. Cooper argues that
mailing a copy of the petition to the attorney for Ventlings conferred jurisdiction.
We disagree. Sending a copy of the petition to the Ventlings’ attorney did not
meet the service requirements of Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.301 through
1.315.
See In re the Marriage of Meyer, 285 N.W.2d 10, 10 (Iowa 1979)
(sustaining a former husband’s special appearance challenge to the court’s
personal jurisdiction where the only notice was a copy of a notice for hearing
mailed to the attorney who represented the former husband in the dissolution
matter). The court noted that even if notice is ordered by the court it must be
consistent with due process of law. Id. at 11. The court held the notice did not
afford the former husband an opportunity to appear and resist. Id. at 12. The
same principles apply here. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
