Hartig v. Francois, 93-487
| Decision Date | 27 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-487,93-487 |
| Citation | 519 N.W.2d 393 |
| Parties | Richard J. HARTIG, Appellant, v. Thomas FRANCOIS and T. Curt Francois d/b/a Thomas Francois Masonry, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Robert L. Sudmeier of Fuerste, Carew, Coyle, Juergens & Sudmeier, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Stephen J. Powell and Samuel C. Anderson of Swisher & Cohrt, Waterloo, for appellees.
Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and LARSON, LAVORATO, SNELL, and TERNUS, JJ.
This is an appeal by a homeowner from a summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants in a suit for alleged negligence in the construction of a retaining wall. We reverse and remand.
The plaintiff first raises an issue of "jurisdiction" to enter the summary judgment order. The defendant contends that the issue has been waived by the plaintiff's failure to raise it in district court. The plaintiff rejoins that this is not an issue that needs to be raised because it is subject matter jurisdiction.
The procedural facts are that Judge Curnan had considered the summary judgment motion and had heard the arguments of counsel. He apparently then dictated a proposed order, but did not sign it. He left for vacation, and Judge Pearson was assigned to try the case. As the time for trial approached, Judge Pearson was advised that there was an unsigned order on the summary judgment motion. He located the order and signed it.
In Dunkelbarger v. Myers, 211 Iowa 512, 233 N.W. 744 (1930), the presiding judge took the case under advisement. Another judge, not knowing that, entered his own order. On appeal, we held that the intervening judge did not have "jurisdiction" to enter the order:
[W]hen the case was apportioned to [the first judge], no other judge of that court could in any way interfere with said cause, for by such apportionment to him, the other judges lost jurisdiction of the case....
Of course, this rule will not apply where a judge takes a matter under advisement and fails to decide it before the expiration of his term of office, or in case of his death, or any other unavoidable casualty, in which event the jurisdiction would pass back to the court as a whole, and some other judge would have disposition of the matter.
Dunkelbarger, 211 Iowa at 516, 233 N.W. at 745.
The present case is distinguishable from cases such as Dunkelbarger because the action of Judge Pearson was not inconsistent with that of Judge Curnan, but rather was in furtherance of it.
This case is similar to State v. Wrage, 279 N.W.2d 4 (Iowa 1979), in which we said:
[T]he holding in Dunkelbarger was limited to its facts: dismissal of the case by one judge while it was under submission to another judge. It is not authority for the contention that any judicial determination in a case by one judge divests all other judges of authority to act on other matters in the same case.
We need not address the defendant's procedural argument on the alleged failure to preserve error because we reject the jurisdiction argument on its merits.
Defendant Thomas Francois, who operates a construction company in Dubuque, is defendant Curt Francois's father. Summary judgment was entered on behalf of Thomas Francois on the grounds that, (1) as a matter of law, a joint enterprise with Curt could not be established, and (2) Thomas Francois could not be held liable for negligence. The case proceeded to trial against Curt Francois only, and a judgment was entered against him.
For summary judgment purposes, a fact issue exists if reasonable minds could differ on how the issues should be resolved. Hoefer v. Wisconsin Educ. Ass'n Ins. Trust, 470 N.W.2d 336, 338 (Iowa 1991).
A. A joint venture is an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise or a common undertaking in which they combine their property, money, efforts, skill, or knowledge. Farm-Fuel Prods. Corp. v. Grain Processing Corp., 429 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1988) (citing Pay-N-Taket, Inc. v. Crooks, 259 Iowa 719, 724, 145 N.W.2d 621, 625 (1966)). The existence of a joint enterprise need not be expressed but may be implied in whole or in part from the conduct of the parties. Farm-Fuel, 429 N.W.2d at 156.
Thomas, the father, furnished labor and supervisory services...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Seyler, In re
...judge may sign a judgment or order prepared, but not signed, by the judge to whom the matter has been submitted. Hartig v. Francois, 519 N.W.2d 393, 394 (Iowa 1994); accord 48A C.J.S. Judges § 67, at 653. In Hartig, a motion for summary judgment had been argued and submitted to the court. H......
-
Junk v. Terminix Intern. Co.
...analysis of the negligence claim against him. An employee may be held liable under Iowa law for on the job negligence. Hartig v. Francois, 519 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Iowa 1994). There are limits to such liability, however. "An employee who carefully carries out the plans, specifications and direc......
-
General Asphalt Construction Company v. Grace Lutheran Foundation, Inc.
...business enterprise or a common undertaking in which they combine their property, money, efforts, skill, or knowledge." Hartig v. Franoi, 519 N.W.2d 393, 394 (Iowa 1994). The "usual indicia" of a joint venture are "(1) a common undertaking; (2) a joint proprietary interest in the subject ma......
-
Hartig v. Francois, 95-1715
...Curt. On appeal of the summary judgment ruling, we reversed and remanded Hartig's claim against Francois for trial. Hartig v. Francois, 519 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Iowa 1994). On remand, the case was tried to the court. The district court held Francois liable for failing to exercise the skill and ......