Werkmeister v. Kroneberger, 59823

• Decision Date: 22 February 1978
• Docket Number: No. 59823,59823
• Citation: 262 N.W.2d 295
• Parties: August WERKMEISTER and Lorretta Werkmeister, Emma J. Kessler and Elmer J. Kessler, Appellees, v. Michael J. KRONEBERGER, Kirsch, Chandler, Feeney and Company, Inc., Appellants.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 295

262 N.W.2d 295

August WERKMEISTER and Lorretta Werkmeister, Emma J. Kessler and Elmer J. Kessler, Appellees, v. Michael J. KRONEBERGER, Kirsch, Chandler, Feeney and Company, Inc., Appellants.

No. 59823.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 22, 1978.

Klauer, Stapleton & Ernst, Dubuque, for appellants.

Wunschel Law Firm, P. C., Carroll, for appellees.

Considered by MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, and HARRIS, JJ.

LeGRAND, Justice.

This action alleges fraud and misrepresentation by defendants in inducing plaintiffs to invest in a series of worthless notes and mortgages. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs in the aggregate amount of $44,560.00. We do not reach the merits of this controversy because we decide the district court was without authority to entertain the suit following dismissal of the case under Rule 215.1, Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs' petition was filed on May 23, 1974. The matter was still pending a year later, and on August 7, 1975, the district court clerk notified counsel of record the case was subject to be stricken on January 1, 1976, unless either tried or continued by order of court before that date.

It was neither tried nor was any application filed asking that it be continued. Under our prior decisions, the case was therefore automatically dismissed on January 1, 1976. The fact the clerk failed to delete the case from the docket or that the court did not enter an order of dismissal does not save the action. Baty v. City of West Des Moines, 259 Iowa 1017, 1023, 147 N.W.2d 204, 208 (1966). See also Kutrules v. Suchomel, 258 Iowa 1206, 1212, 141 N.W.2d 593, 597 (1966).

The trial court was without authority to try this case unless it was properly reinstated according to Rule 215.1, which provides in part:

"The trial court may, in its discretion, and shall upon a showing that such dismissal was the result of oversight, mistake or other reasonable cause, reinstate the action or actions so dismissed. Application for such reinstatement, setting forth the grounds therefor, shall be filed within six months from the date of dismissal." (Emphasis supplied.)

We accord considerable discretion to trial courts in reinstating stricken cases. Rath v. Sholty, 199 N.W.2d 333, 336 (Iowa 1972). We also recognize that reinstatement is mandatory upon a showing of oversight, mistake or other reasonable cause. Wharff v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 219 N.W.2d 18, 21 (Iowa 1974).

Once a case is stricken, however, it may be reinstated under either the...