Lambert v. the Iowa Dep't of Transp., 09–0998.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–0998.,09–0998.
• Citation: 804 N.W.2d 253
• Parties: Glenn R. LAMBERT, Stephen G. Lambert, Phillip R. Lambert, Thomas A. Lambert, Linda A. Hicks & Janet S. Ruddy d/b/a Lambert Farms Partnership, Appellees,v.The IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

804 N.W.2d 253

Glenn R. LAMBERT, Stephen G. Lambert, Phillip R. Lambert, Thomas A. Lambert, Linda A. Hicks & Janet S. Ruddy d/b/a Lambert Farms Partnership, Appellees,

v.The IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant.

No. 09–0998.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 30, 2011.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard E. Mull and Robin G. Formaker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.Kristofer J. Lyons and Michael A. Bowman of Shimanek, Shimanek, & Bowman, Monticello, for appellees.MANSFIELD, Justice.I. Introduction.

This case presents a close, but narrow, question: When a court order dismissing an action reveals the court's intent to preserve a claim arising out of the same transaction that is pending in another lawsuit, should the claim in the other lawsuit be allowed to proceed? We conclude that it should, even if the language of the dismissal order is less explicit than it might have been. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered in the second action in favor of the plaintiff, which judgment followed a denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on claim preclusion.

II. Factual and Procedural Background.

Plaintiffs Glenn Lambert, Stephen Lambert, Phillip Lambert, Thomas Lambert, Linda Hicks, and Janet Ruddy (the Lamberts) own farmland in Jones County. In 2001, the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) condemned part of that land to be used for the relocation of Highway 151. The notice of condemnation identified certain property that would be acquired permanently, but also gave IDOT temporary easement rights to another area where borrow material would be removed for use in the highway project.

The easement language provided that IDOT would restore the borrow area upon completion of the project. Thus, it said that “[e]ight inches of topsoil shall be removed, stockpiled and replaced on the land to be acquired by said temporary easement to secure borrow material.” (Emphasis added.) The notice also provided that IDOT would not repair or replace any damaged or destroyed tiles, but would “leave the surface of the borrow area sloped to drain.” In May 2001, the Compensation Commission approved a $117,455 condemnation award to the Lamberts.

Subsequently, the Lamberts discovered that IDOT had not replaced the topsoil in the borrow area nor graded the land to allow drainage. Therefore, on October 13, 2006, after unsuccessfully trying to obtain voluntary performance from IDOT and administrative relief from the State Appeals Board, the Lamberts filed a petition at law naming both IDOT and the State as defendants (LACV 003770). The Lamberts alleged the defendants had breached their promise in the condemnation proceedings to properly restore the borrow area.

IDOT's motion to dismiss was granted, but the State remained a defendant. Later, the State moved for summary judgment on March 4, 2008. The State argued, among other things, that the Lamberts' exclusive remedy was a mandamus action to compel further condemnation proceedings, since the Lamberts were claiming, in effect, a further unauthorized and uncompensated taking.

On May 19, 2008, the district court granted the State's motion. It cited Mapes v. Madison County, 252 Iowa 395, 398, 107 N.W.2d 62, 64 (1961), for the proposition that “[w]here prior condemnation did not acquire the rights as to property taken later, the proper remedy also is mandamus to compel further condemnation.” The court also explained:

Plaintiffs are unable to generate any genuine issue of material fact on the State's primary argument, which is that Plaintiffs' claims stem from their assertion that they have not been fully compensated for the taking of their land. The nature of Plaintiffs' claim is that they have not received just compensation, and the Court construes Plaintiffs' action as one of inverse condemnation. As such, the appropriate forum for Plaintiffs' claims is a mandamus action, in which it can be determined whether the prior condemnation resulted in Plaintiffs acquiring the rights to which they were entitled under the condemnation agreement. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not set forth a specific request that mandamus be considered as a remedy in this action. In fact, Plaintiffs have filed a separate mandamus action in Jones County District Court. The Court finds no reason to delay entry of a ruling on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment in this action until the separate mandamus action has been concluded. Therefore, the Court finds that the State's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted as to the State's argument that Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy is a mandamus action to compel condemnation proceedings. Because mandamus is the exclusive remedy for Plaintiffs' claims, the Court does not reach the other arguments made by the State in its Motion for Summary Judgment, and finds that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied in its entirety.

In the conclusion to its order, the district court stated that “the State's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the State's argument that Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy is a mandamus action to compel condemnation proceedings” and dismissed cause LACV 003770.

Meanwhile, after receiving the State's March 4, 2008 summary judgment motion in LACV 003770, the Lamberts commenced a separate petition for writ of mandamus against IDOT (EQCV 004228). On May 7, 2008, before the district court had entered its May 19 summary judgment ruling in LACV 003770, IDOT responded to the mandamus petition in EQCV 004228 with a motion to dismiss, stay, or consolidate. IDOT argued that the new action (EQCV 004228) should be dismissed because the Lamberts had not pled the correct form of mandamus. (The Lamberts had sought mandamus to compel IDOT to perform the restoration work, rather than mandamus to compel further condemnation proceedings.) IDOT also argued that if the new action were not dismissed, it should be stayed or consolidated with the earlier action.

Upon receiving word that the State's motion for summary judgment had been granted in LACV 003770, IDOT filed a second motion to dismiss EQCV 004228 on June 2, 2008. This time, IDOT argued the dismissal of the earlier action barred the Lamberts from bringing the new action under principles of both claim and issue preclusion.

On or about June 12, 2008, the Lamberts moved to enlarge or amend the order dismissing LACV 003770 to clarify that it would allow for a separate mandamus action, moved to amend the petition in LACV 003770 to add a mandamus claim, and also moved to amend their petition in EQCV 004228 to revise their mandamus allegations.

On June 17, 2008, and July 1, 2008, the district court ruled on the pending motions in EQCV 004228. It denied IDOT's motions to dismiss and granted the Lamberts' motion to amend. It determined that the new mandamus allegations were in the correct form, that issue preclusion did not apply, and that, under principles of claim preclusion, the dismissal of LACV 003770 did not bar the Lamberts from proceeding with a separate mandamus action in EQCV 004228.

The following month, on August 26, 2008, the district court ruled on the Lamberts' motions in LACV 003770. It found the Lamberts' motion to enlarge or amend was untimely since it had not been filed within ten days of the underlying order as required by rule 1.904(2). As to the Lamberts' motion to amend, the district court concluded, “Because the Petition no longer exists, legally, the Plaintiff cannot amend the Petition, as would be permitted by Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Proceedings in EQCV 004228 continued. On April 6, 2009, IDOT filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the petition was barred by claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and the statute of limitations. On June 2, 2009, the district court denied this motion except as to specific performance relief, which it found was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. With regard to the claim preclusion defense, the district court acknowledged that the mandamus claim “could have been brought in the first case and could have been fully and fairly adjudicated in the first case.” Yet it concluded that an exception to normal rules of claim preclusion applied because the order granting the State's motion for summary judgment in LACV 003770 “contemplated that Lamberts' mandamus claim (EQCV 004228) would be preserved” and therefore was not “an adjudication on the merits of the claim for mandamus.”

Subsequently, based on a stipulation of the parties, the district court entered an order granting the Lamberts' requested writ of mandamus while preserving IDOT's appeal rights on claim preclusion. IDOT's appeal on the question of claim preclusion is now before us. IDOT argues that the final dismissal of LACV 003770 on May 19, 2008, has claim preclusive effect and should have barred the Lamberts from pursuing EQCV 004228.

III. Standard of Review.

We review a ruling on a motion for summary judgment for errors at law. Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138, 143 (Iowa 2010).IV. Analysis.

This appeal involves the question of “claim splitting.” A valid final judgment on a claim generally precludes relitigation of the same claim or any part of it. Arnevik v. Univ. of Minn. Bd. of Regents, 642 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Iowa 2002). The rule governing claim preclusion is “based on the principle that a party may not split or try his claim piecemeal, but must put in issue and try his entire claim or put his entire defense in the case on trial.” B & B Asphalt Co. v. T.S. McShane Co., 242 N.W.2d 279, 286 (Iowa 1976). Thus, a party “is not entitled to a second day in court by alleging a new ground of recovery for the same wrong.” Arnevik, 642 N.W.2d at 319 (holding an indemnification claim based on breach of contract was barred by claim preclusion due to the dismissal of a prior indemnification claim based on respondeat superior).

IDOT contends that the rule against claim-splitting applies here because nothing prevented the Lamberts...