Lonning v. Lonning, 55200
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | REYNOLDSON |
| Citation | 199 N.W.2d 60 |
| Parties | Mary Jean LONNING, Appellant, v. Richard Craig LONNING, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 55200,55200 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1972 |
Page 60
v.
Richard Craig LONNING, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 1972.
Page 61
J. R. McManus, Des Moines, for appellant.
Frank W. Davis and Berry O. Burt, Des Moines, for appellee.
REYNOLDSON, Justice.
At issue in this case is trial court's jurisdiction to modify a divorce decree, transferring custody of two small children to their father and terminating his obligation to pay child support.
These parties were divorced May 29, 1969, in Polk County District Court. The mother was awarded custody of the children and moved with them to Colorado. Visitation rights were granted the father.
On August 6, 1970, when the children were with him in Iowa, the father filed application for modification of the decree, seeking to obtain custody. An order was entered fixing September 3, 1970 as hearing date and prescribing notice by mail to the mother and to her attorney in the divorce proceeding, Charles J. Cardamon of Des Moines. A separate order entered the same day granted temporary custody to the father pending hearing and provided a copy of the order be served by mail on the mother and the above named attorney.
August 12, 1970, the mother's answer in the modification proceeding was filed by attorney Charles J. Cardamon.
On August 26, 1970, attorney Cardamon filed a 'Withdrawal of Appearance' purporting to withdraw the appearance and answer earlier filed for the mother. Attached was a telegram sent to him from Colorado by the mother:
'I have never received a notice in reference to a hearing. I have never authorized you to enter your appearance in my behalf. I have retained an attorney in the State of Colorado and I contend that Iowa has no jurisdiction. I am without funds with which to travel to Iowa.'
At the September 3, 1970 hearing the mother was not represented by counsel. The father's application was granted by a modification decree dated September 11, 1970.
Some seven months later (on April 9, 1971) the mother, by other counsel who represents her here, filed in the same cause a 'Special Appearance' challenging that court's jurisdiction of her and affirmatively demanding the order purporting to modify the original decree be quashed. After hearing, trial court overruled the special appearance. The mother appeals from this ruling. We affirm.
Propositions relied on for reversal relate to the alleged lack of notice to the mother, depriving her of rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of amendment 14, United States Constitution; further, she alleges attorney Cardamon was without authority to represent her in the modification proceeding.
It should be noted a special appearance is an inappropriate vehicle to raise the jurisdictional question following entry of judgment. Miller v. Farmers Cooperative Company, Lost Nation, 176 N.W.2d
Page 62
832 (Iowa 1970); Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Fritz, 228 Iowa 482, 292 N.W. 143 (1940). That issue is not raised here, nor is the question whether the requisite jurisdiction would have remained with the district court had attorney Cardamon obtained timely consent to withdraw the appearance and answer. Compare language in Sawyer v. Sawyer, 261 Iowa 112, 152 N.W.2d 605 (1967) and Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 1424 (1959) with Baker v. Baker, 248 Iowa 361, 81 N.W.2d 1 (1957) and Sloan v. Jepson, 217 Iowa 1082, 252 N.W. 535 (1934).I. The rules which govern our consideration of this case are well established. The filing of a pleading is a general appearance. Rule 65(c), Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction of the person in a civil case may be acquired by service of notice in the manner and form prescribed by law, or by defendant's general appearance. Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Association, 258 Iowa 285, 138 N.W.2d 914 (1965); Emery Transportation Company v. Baker, 257 Iowa 1260, 136 N.W.2d 529 (1965); Baker v. Baker, supra. A general appearance is a waiver of notice and if a party appears in person or by attorney he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Humboldt Livestock Auction, Inc. v. B & H Cattle Co., 261 Iowa 419, 155 N.W.2d 478 (1967); O'Connor v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers
...to make an appearance, or to waive objections to service and in personam jurisdiction. The persuasive case of Lonning v. Lonning, 199 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1972), addresses precisely this scenario and affirms the ruling of the trial 886 So.2d 53 court denying relief from the challenged "The r......
-
D.B. v. D.G., 2120217.
...Pay–Per–View, Ltd. v. Ayers, 886 So.2d 45, 53 (Ala.2003), the Alabama Supreme Court quoted approvingly from Lonning v. Lonning, 199 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1972), for the proposition that: “ ‘ “The rules which govern our consideration of this case are well established. [141 So.3d 1070]The filin......
-
KLAESER v. MILTON, 2080722.
...Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers, 886 So.2d 45, 53 (Ala.2003), the Alabama Supreme Court quoted approvingly from Lonning v. Lonning, 199 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1972), for the proposition that: “ ‘The rules which govern our consideration of this case are well established. The filing of a pleading is......
-
Montano v. Scottsdale Baptist Hospital, Inc., 13161
...200 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 1972), cert. dismissed Barr v. Thorp Credit, Inc., 410 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 978, 35 L.Ed.2d 581; Lonning v. Lonning, 199 N.W.2d 60 (Iowa We quote at length from the Iowa case of Lonning v. Lonning: "The rules which govern our consideration of this case are well establishe......