EIKENBERRY v. OWENS (2021)

Court of Appeals of Iowa.2021-01-21No. No. 19-1723

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal of Eikenberry's petition against Owens because Eikenberry's failure to comply with the strict certified mail service requirement within ten days deprived the district court of jurisdiction, and Eikenberry failed to preserve any argument for alternative service.

Katelyn Eikenberry sued Samantha Owens for negligence arising from a 2016 car accident. Eikenberry filed suit in December 2018 and notified the Iowa Department of Transportation as required for serving a nonresident defendant. However, Eikenberry failed to mail the required certified notice to Owens within ten days of filing with the DOT, as mandated by Iowa law. Although Eikenberry sent a regular mailing that was never returned as undeliverable, the court found this insufficient because Iowa law requires strict compliance with the certified mail method of service for nonresident defendants.

The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction due to defective service. On appeal, Eikenberry argued she should have been given additional time or allowed to use an alternate service method, but she had not raised these arguments to the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Eikenberry failed to preserve the good-cause argument by not presenting it to the district court.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether strict compliance with Iowa's nonresident service statute (Iowa Code § 321.501) is required
Whether actual delivery by regular mail substitutes for the statutory certified mail requirement
Whether failure to raise a good-cause argument at trial preserved appellate review of that argument

Procedural posture

The trial court granted Owens's motion to dismiss for defective service, and Eikenberry appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

On December 5, 2018, Katelyn Eikenberry, an Iowa resident, filed suit against Samantha Owens, a Nebraska resident, alleging negligence in relation to a December 2016 automobile collision. In August 2019, Owens filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.302(5), alleging she was never served with the original notice and petition. Eikenberry resisted. The resistance and its attachments disclose the original notice and petition were filed with the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) on December 27, 2018; a non-resident notification was mailed to Owens by regular and certified mail on January 12, 2019; and the certified mailing was returned to Eikenberrys counsel on March 4, stating, “attempted—not known, unable to forward,” but the regular mailing was never returned. Owens replied Eikenberry failed to cause mailing by restricted certified mail to her within ten days of notice of filing the original notice with the DOT, as required by Iowa Code section 321.501(2) (2018). Following an unreported hearing, the court granted the motion to dismiss and this appeal followed.

The requirements of section 321.501 must be strictly complied with. Emery Transp. Co. v. Baker, 119 N.W.2d 272, 274–75 (Iowa 1963). A plaintiff in actions against nonresidents “shall cause the original notice of suit to be served” by mailing by restricted certified mail a notification of filing notice of suit with the DOT within ten days after filing notice with the DOT. Iowa Code § 321.501(2). “[T]here must be a showing of actual or offered delivery.” L.F. Noll Inc. v. Eviglo, 816 N.W.2d 391, 395 (Iowa 2012). Eikenberry admittedly failed to mail the notice to Owens within ten days. While Eikenberry argues the regular mailing was not returned as undeliverable, hence suggesting Owens received it, “[o]ur supreme court has identified the restricted certified mail method of service required by section 321.501 as ‘extraordinary in character,’ and has stated that it ‘must be strictly followed.’ ” Butler v. Nalvanko, No. 0-984, 2011 WL 441483, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2011) (quoting Esterdahl v. Wilson, 110 N.W.2d 241, 243 (Iowa 1961)). We conclude the deficient service was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the district court.

Eikenberry goes on to argue good cause exists to warrant additional time and/or an alternate manner of service. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.302(5). But Eikenberry does not appear to have made this argument to the district court and, if she did, the court did not address it in its ruling, so we agree with Owens that Eikenberry failed to preserve error. See, e.g., 33 Carpenters Constr., Inc. v. State Farm Life & Cas. Co., 939 N.W.2d 69, 76 (Iowa 2020) (“We are a court of review, and we do not generally decide an issue that the district court did not decide first.”).

We affirm the dismissal of Eikenberrys petition as to Owens.

AFFIRMED.

MULLINS, Presiding Judge.