Kernodle v. Commissioner of Ins. of State of Iowa, 67520

• Decision Date: 16 March 1983
• Docket Number: No. 67520,67520
• Citation: 331 N.W.2d 132
• Parties: James KERNODLE, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF the STATE OF IOWA, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 132

331 N.W.2d 132

James KERNODLE, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF the STATE OF IOWA, Appellee.

No. 67520.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 16, 1983.

William H. Cone, Jr., Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Fred M. Haskins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and UHLENHOPP, LARSON, SCHULTZ, and CARTER, JJ.

CARTER, Justice.

Petitioner James Kernodle appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for judicial review of administrative agency action. The underlying administrative order for which judicial review is sought is final agency action by the respondent Commissioner of Insurance in a contested case proceeding revoking petitioner's license as an insurance agent.

The order of the respondent revoking petitioner's license was entered on August 7, 1981. The petition for judicial review was filed by petitioner in the Iowa District Court for Polk County on August 19, 1981, asserting that the final agency action was not supported by substantial evidence in the record, was arbitrary and capricious, and was affected by error of law. On the date the petition was filed, petitioner obtained an ex parte order from the district court staying the effective date of the revocation of his license as an insurance agent pending final disposition of his petition for judicial review. On August 28, 1981, this stay order was dissolved on motion of the respondent. On September 8, 1981, respondent filed his answer denying the material allegations of the petition for judicial review and requesting that the final agency action revoking petitioner's license be affirmed.

The next action which occurred in the district court, as shown by the record, is an order entered September 9, 1981, denying petitioner's claim for relief on the merits and entering final judgment. Both parties concede on appeal that when this order and judgment was entered, no hearing had been held nor had any alternative mode of submission been ordered by the court pursuant to rule 333(b), Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. It is also conceded by the respondent that the record of the contested case proceeding before the agency had not yet been filed in the district court when petitioner's claims were adjudicated against him.

Petitioner immediately appealed from the district court order rejecting his claim and entering judgment against him. He asserts the trial court erred in finally adjudicating the merits of his petition for judicial review without holding a hearing and prior to the availability of the record made before the agency. Respondent urges that a hearing is not required and that there are jurisdictional and procedural bars to petitioner's claim both in the trial court and on appeal. We consider the claims presented and reverse the order of the district court.

I. Jurisdictional Questions.

Before considering the issues which petitioner urges on appeal, we first consider two jurisdictional questions relating to the proceedings in the district court. The first of these two questions concerns respondent's claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for judicial review because the caption of that petition was entitled "Before the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Iowa." The petition was filed with the clerk of the Iowa District Court for Polk County and specifically designated that court in the body of the petition as the forum which was to act on the petition. This jurisdictional claim was not raised in the district court, and respondent filed an answer to the petition and prayed for an order of the court affirming the final agency action. It is respondent's claim on appeal that the issue is one of subject-matter jurisdiction which may be raised at any time.

" 'Subject-matter jurisdiction means the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings belong.' " Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co. 303 N.W.2d 171, 173 (Iowa 1981), quoting Wederath v. Brant, 287 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Iowa 1980). See In re Estate of Dull, 303 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 1981); 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 88 (1965); 21 C.J.S. Courts § 105 (1940). The fact the caption fails to correctly designate the court where the petition is filed does not defeat the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to review final agency action under Iowa Code section 17A.19 (1981). Respondent may not raise this issue for the first time on appeal.

The second jurisdictional issue which we face is one which we requested the parties to address by a presubmission order. The record initially contained no indication of the required mailing of the petition for judicial review to the necessary parties. Since the time of our presubmission order questioning this deficiency, an affidavit of mailing has been included in the record which, together with certified mail receipts, shows compliance with the mailing requirements of Iowa Code section 17A.19(2) (1981).

II. Necessity of a Rule 179(b) Motion.

Respondent next seeks to defeat petitioner's claims on appeal by urging that the procedural deficiency, if any, in the district court's entry of judgment without hearing or without fixing an alternative mode of submission under rule 333(b) may not be reviewed because no motion was made in the district court to expand the said ruling under rule 179(b), Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure.

We have often held that a rule 179(b) motion is essential to preservation of error when a trial court fails to resolve an issue, claim, defense or legal theory properly submitted for adjudication. Arnold v. Lang, 259 N.W.2d 749, 753 (Iowa 1977); Michael v. Merchants Mut. Bonding Co., 251 N.W.2d 531, 533 (Iowa 1977); Fjelland v. Wemhoff, 249 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Iowa 1977); Rector v. Alcorn, 241 N.W.2d 196, 200 (Iowa 1976). We do not believe, however, that the holdings of these cases govern the issue presented in the instant case. Those holdings relate to issues properly raised in the district court before entry of final judgment and not ruled on by the court. The issue of procedural irregularity in entering judgment in the present case was not an issue submitted to the court for decision before entry of...