Toney v. Parker

Decision Date16 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 19-2121,19-2121
Citation958 N.W.2d 202
Parties Julian Jay TONEY, Appellant, v. Hazel PARKER, Arthur Parker, and the Arthur E. Parker and Hazel Frances Parker Trust Dated 05/26/1993, Appellees.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

James C. Larew of Larew Law Office, Iowa City, for appellant.

Daniel R. Rockhold, Corydon, for appellees.

Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. McDermott, J., took no part in the consideration or the decision of the case.

WATERMAN, Justice.

In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court abused its discretion by striking the plaintiff's resistance to a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff timely filed his resistance and supporting papers on the last day of an extended deadline, but the clerk of court rejected the filing the next morning because of a failure to redact the plaintiff's own social security number. The plaintiff corrected that oversight and refiled 150 pages of resistance papers within the hour, but the district court granted the defendantsmotion to strike the entire filing as untimely and noncompliant due to an unsigned memorandum; a miscaptioned response to the defendants’ undisputed facts; and a separate resistance document initially filed, then inadvertently omitted, then refiled promptly. The district court simultaneously granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing the judge failed to disclose possible grounds for recusal. A different judge rejected the recusal argument, denied the motion to vacate, and ultimately entered judgment for the defendants on their counterclaims, relying in part on the summary judgment. We retained the plaintiff's appeal.

On our review, we conclude the resistance documents were timely filed notwithstanding their technical shortcomings, and the district court abused its discretion by striking the entire resistance filing without any showing of prejudice or violation of a prior court order. That error requires a new hearing on the summary judgment motion and a new trial. We remand the case for further proceedings by a new judge, which renders the recusal issue moot.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Ruth Parker owned real estate in Decatur County commonly referred to as the "Y" property. The Toney family rented this parcel of approximately twenty-four acres from the Parker family beginning in the 1970s. The parties disagree as to whether the Toneys rented the land continuously. In 1990, Ruth died and the land was conveyed to Ruth's son Arthur, commonly called "Ted," and his wife, Hazel. Ted and Hazel transferred the property into the Arthur E. Parker and Hazel Frances Parker Trust (the Trust), which remains the record title holder of the Y property.

Julian Toney and his wife, Anita, sent five letters to the Parkers asking to sell them the Y property. One was undated, another was dated March 25, 2003, followed by three more dated October 15, October 28, and November 2, 2015, respectively. None of the letters mentioned an "option to purchase" or a "life time offer." In September 2015, Toney sent a cashier's check in the amount of $24,000 to the Parkers’ Trust for the land and a warranty deed prepared for the trustee's signature; the Parkers did not accept the tender. Toney alleges the Parkers listed the Y property for sale in September 2016.

On November 25, 2016, the Parkers filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action in Decatur County and served notice on Toney. The next business day, November 28, Toney recorded a "Life Time Lease" to the Y property, allegedly executed in 1974, which stated:

Life time Lease
Rental Agreement – between Parker family and Toney family. for the Y land 27 acres 3/4 mile north of Ruth parker's house. on east side of road. 4 acre and 3 acre of grass and hay field. $200.00 year.
also a 50/50 – timber agreement after 20 year log cut 50/50 share. 50% parker 50% toney – toney brush cut & trim – 20 acres of timber.
also a right to purchase the 27 – Y – acres after 20 year f[ro]m the Date June 22 1974. at $575 acre. – life time offer.

The document included the signature of Julian Toney as "Renter 50/50 pastures" and the purported signature of Arthur E. Parker as "Son and Overseer of Ruth Parker." Ted denies that he signed the lease. The parties dispute whether Ted would have had the authority to sign on behalf of his mother. The Parkers argue that Ted lacked such authority because his mother was still alive and had not authorized him to act as her agent. They also point to a real estate contract Ruth (not Ted on her behalf) executed with another individual in 1975.

The district court dismissed the FED action on January 4, 2017, finding that the Parkers had failed to comply with the notice requirement for farm tenancies in Iowa Code section 562.7. On July 6, the Parkers served Toney a notice that the farm tenancy would terminate on March 1, 2018. In February 2018, Toney's attorney sent a lease-purchase option and $15,525 to the Parkers’ attorney, who rejected the offer on April 4. Notably, this was $8475 less than Toney's offer in September 2015; Toney's explanation for the discrepancy was his friendship with Ted.

On February 28, 2018, the last day of Toney's farm tenancy, Toney filed a petition for declaratory judgment, specific performance, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Toney requested a temporary and permanent injunction protecting him from the Parkers’ "efforts to seize ownership and control of the Y farm," a declaratory judgment that the lifetime lease gave Toney the right to purchase the Y farm, and specific performance.

On May 7, the Parkers filed an answer with counterclaims for slander of title, ejectment, trespass, quiet title, and punitive damages. The Parkers alleged that Ted's signature on the lifetime lease was forged. The Parkers’ trespass and ejection claims were based on Toney failing to vacate the property on March 1 pursuant to their notice of termination.

After six months of contentious litigation, the Parkers filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Toney's claims as time-barred, and on grounds that no enforceable lifetime lease existed. The Parkers also sought summary judgment on their counterclaims. At Toney's request, the district court extended the deadline for the plaintiff's resistance to December 17.

On December 17, the paralegal for Toney's attorney filed a 2-page resistance, a 46-page memorandum in support of the resistance, a 25-page response to defendants’ statement of facts and plaintiff's statement of facts, and a 79-page appendix that included affidavits and deposition testimony and exhibits. At 8:37 a.m. the next day, the filings, totaling 152 pages, were rejected by the clerk of court because Toney's social security number was shown once on page 76 of his appendix. The paralegal redacted the social security number and refiled the documents within forty-five minutes. The paralegal who filed the documents stated in an affidavit that it was his "belief, based on my usual and customary practices, that I filed the Resistance document itself as a part of that filing." However, the resistance was missing from that 150-page refiling; the paralegal attached the 2-page resistance to his affidavit filed on December 21.

The Parkers filed a motion to strike on December 20, arguing that the filings were untimely and deficient because the supporting memorandum was unsigned, the resistance had been omitted, and a statement of disputed facts was miscaptioned. On February 9, 2019, the district court granted the Parkers’ motion to strike, noting the deadline had already been extended once at Toney's request, and further stating there was

no reasonable excuse for his multiple failures to abide by the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to timely file an actual resistance, for failing to sign his memorandum of authorities, or for failing to file a clear statement of disputed facts.

The district court simultaneously granted summary judgment in favor of the Parkers dismissing Toney's claim for breach of contract, denied Toney's requests for temporary and permanent injunctive relief and for declaratory judgment, quieted title in the Parker Trust, ordered Toney to vacate the property within thirty days, and assessed court costs against Toney.

The district court amended its order on March 6, holding that trial was still necessary to adjudicate the Parkers’ counterclaim for slander of title, and to determine actual damages on their counterclaims for trespass and ejection, and punitive damages. The district court ruled that the findings of fact in its February 9 order were deemed established along with additional findings set forth in the March 6 order.

On May 15, the Parkers filed an application for rule to show cause, alleging that Toney had failed to remove his cattle and placed a new sign on the gate intended to "discourage potential buyers of the subject property from purchasing the land." The district court granted that application the same day.

Six days later, Toney filed a motion to vacate the district court's February 9 and March 6 orders, on the grounds that Judge Relph had failed to disclose that her husband, Daren Relph, was the CEO for Wayne County Hospital (the Hospital), where the Parkers’ attorney, Daniel Rockhold, had been elected to serve on the board of trustees in November 2018. Both parties filed a July 1, 2017 agreement between Mercy Health Network, Inc. (Mercy) and the Hospital whereby Mercy would provide certain management services to the Hospital, including providing a fulltime Chief Executive Officer/Administrator (CEO) for the Hospital. The agreement explains that the board and Mercy will jointly conduct performance reviews and provide these to the CEO's employer. If there is a deficiency in the CEO's performance, the board will notify Mercy. If the deficiency is not cured, Mercy and the Hospital will "work cooperatively to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bauer v. Brinkman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 16, 2021
  • Kindig v. Spencer Newman, Colby Newman, Josh Burns, Jacob Schroeder, & the Press Box Grille & Bar, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • May 12, 2021
    ...did not describe its ruling as granting an amendment. But we seek to avoid elevating "form over substance." See, e.g. , Toney v. Parker , 958 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 2021). So we focus on the substantive effect of the court's ruling.4 Dustin never objected to the testimony as inadmissible prior ba......
  • In re J.W.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 26, 2023
    ...exercised "with restraint and caution." Motz v. Motz, 207 N.W.2d 580, 581 (Iowa 1973). "Dismissal is a drastic remedy." Toney v. Parker, 958 N.W.2d 202, 210 (Iowa 2021). "Generally, we do not affirm the sanction of dismissal without the violation of a prior court order." Id. While I agree t......
  • Williams v. Bullock
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 4, 2021
    ...In our view, the document's title or label is not controlling and we decline to elevate form over substance. Cf. Toney v. Parker , 958 N.W.2d 202, 209–10 (Iowa 2021) (looking beyond caption to substance of document to determine its legal effect). On April 19, 2018, five days after the dorm ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT