John Joseph Benge v. Wayne Michael Lautenbach ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1267
Filed April 12, 2023
JOHN JOSEPH BENGE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WAYNE MICHAEL LAUTENBACH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County, Elisabeth
Reynoldson, Judge.
Wayne Michael Lautenbach appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. AFFIRMED.
David Leitner, West Des Moines, for appellant.
John J. Benge, Lineville, self-represented appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
2
GREER, Judge.
Wayne Lautenbach asks us to decide if the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment that he argues did not comply with Iowa
Code section 626A.2(1) (2021).1 His requested remedy is dismissal of the
collection action against him. He characterizes the question he presents as one
of first impression. We start with the procedural background that gets us to an
Iowa court.
The Process.
After John Benge, a Missouri lawyer, performed legal services for
Lautenbach, Benge obtained a March 2021 default judgment in the Missouri courts
against Lautenbach for unpaid legal fees. In April, Benge attempted to enforce the
Missouri judgment in Iowa by filing a certified, but not authenticated, copy of the
order with the Wayne County, Iowa clerk of court. In June, the clerk of court filed
and sent to Lautenbach a notice of filing of foreign judgment. Nineteen days later,
Benge acknowledged receipt in a letter directed to the clerk of court disputing the
filing as “highly irregular,” along with other general statements about constitutional
1 Section 626A.2(1) provides:
A copy of a foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with
an Act of Congress or the statutes of this state may be filed in the
office of the clerk of the district court of a county of this state which
would have venue if the original action was being commenced in this
state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner
as a judgment of the district court of this state. A judgment so filed
has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses
and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment
of the district court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in
like manner.
3
rights.2 So, the next month, Benge took steps to levy against some Iowa real
estate purportedly owned by Lautenbach in Wayne County. In August,
Lautenbach filed another letter to the clerk of court along with a document entitled
“Wayne-Michael: Lautenbach, Formal Challenge to the Twelve Presumptions of
Law.” None of the documents addressed the venue of the case. Next, the district
court, recognizing Lautenbach’s filings as a challenge to the clerk of court’s
authority, issued an August 2021 ruling finding the challenges were without merit
and concluding “there was no timely challenge to the conclusiveness of the foreign
judgment.” See Iowa Code § 626A.2(3). Lautenbach did not appeal the ruling.
Then, over three months later, Lautenbach moved to quash the writ of
execution and asked for a stay of “any further efforts to seize the real estate.”
Because of a dispute over who held title to the real estate being executed upon,3
Benge asked for time to address the motion to quash after discovery was
completed, and the district court granted that request. But by April 2022, while the
discovery was ongoing, Lautenbach moved to dismiss the case arguing that the
district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, noting he could raise that
issue at any time. The central theme of the motion was:
[t]he court only has subject matter jurisdiction if venue in the original
action would have lied in this court. Venue in this county would not
exist if the original action was commenced in this state. The proper
venue is required to grant this court subject matter jurisdiction over
the foreign judgment.
2 Included with his letter were copies of some documents filed in the Missouri court
where judgment was obtained.
3 Benge attempted to collect the judgment by attaching real property that at the
time of collection was titled in the name “Heavens Door Trust,” but title was an
underlying issue in the case because Benge alleged Lautenbach filed documents
after the title transfer to the trust declaring his individual ownership in the real
estate and was the sole trustee and beneficiary of the trust.
4
Lautenbach referenced Iowa Code section 616.17, relating to the proper venue for
personal actions not otherwise provided in chapter 616. The district court
conducted a reported hearing on both Lautenbach’s motion to dismiss and an
application for discovery sanctions filed by Benge over discovery abuses. Denying
the motion to dismiss, the district court reasoned:
[Lautenbach’s] Motion asserts the case must be dismissed as the
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. [Lautenbach] cites
Iowa Code section 626A.2 in support of his Motion. As correctly
stated by [Benge] in his Resistance, section 626A.2 refers to “venue,”
not subject matter jurisdiction. For this and all the reasons set forth
in [Benge’s] Resistance, [Lautenbach’s] Motion to Dismiss is denied.
The district court also issued severe discovery sanctions. Lautenbach asked the
district court to reconsider its ruling. After receiving the ruling denying his motion
to reconsider, Lautenbach appealed.
Disposition.
In his appellate brief, Lautenbach frames his appeal issue as “whether the
[Iowa] district court had subject matter jurisdiction to deal with the Missouri
judgment.” We review subject matter jurisdiction rulings for correction of errors at
law. See Schaefer v. Putnam, 841 N.W.2d 68, 74 (Iowa 2013); see also Iowa R.
App. P. 6.907. “A ‘court has inherent power to determine whether it has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the proceedings before it.’” Klinge v. Bentien, 725
N.W.2d 13, 15 (Iowa 2006) (citation omitted). Our review of a district court’s ruling
on a motion to dismiss is also for errors at law. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Kirk, 801
N.W.2d 856, 859 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). “Ultimately, ‘our decision to overrule or
sustain a motion to dismiss must rest on legal grounds.’” Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668
5
N.W.2d 577, 580 (Iowa 2003) (quoting Haupt v. Miller, 514 N.W.2d 905, 907 (Iowa
1994)).
We first address Lautenbach’s unpreserved argument that the Missouri
judgment was not authenticated under section 622.53, which provides,
“[Judgments] of another state may be proved by the attestation of the clerk and the
seal of the court annexed, if there is a seal, together with a certificate of a judge,
chief justice, or presiding magistrate that the attestation is in due form of law.”
Benge concedes the judgment was certified but not authenticated, but he
correctly points out Lautenbach never mentioned this failing to the district court.
True, until this appeal, Lautenbach did not raise the question of whether the
Missouri judgment was authenticated as a defense. Hence, the district court did
not decide the issue as it never came up in the arguments or pleadings until now.
“Generally, we will only review an issue raised on appeal if it was first presented
to and ruled on by the district court.” Ronnfeldt v. Shelby Cnty. Chris A. Myrtue
Mem’l Hosp., 984 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Iowa 2023) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 757
N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 2008)). We decline to take this up now as there is no
reference in Lautenbach’s appeal brief as to where the issue was preserved in the
underlying action. See id. (refusing to undertake a partisan role and undertake the
party’s research and advocacy).
Returning to the heart of Lautenbach’s appeal—his claim the court lacked
subject matter—we find it “helpful at this juncture to point out the difference
between a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and its authority.” State v. Emery, 636
N.W.2d 116, 119 (Iowa 2001).
6
Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court “to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in
question belong, not merely the particular case then occupying the
court’s attention.” Such jurisdiction flows from the constitution or
from statutes and cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or
estoppel.
. . . [S]ubject matter jurisdiction should not be confused with
authority. “A court may have subject matter jurisdiction but for one
reason or another may not be able to entertain a particular case. In
such a situation we say the court lacks authority to hear that
particular case.” A court may lack authority to hear a particular case
“where a party fails to follow the statutory procedures for invoking the
court's authority.”
Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Here, under the authority of chapter
626A, the Iowa district court had the power to hear cases involving the
enforcement of foreign judgments. Subject matter jurisdiction can be conferred by
statute and is not waived or vested by consent of the parties. Cooper v. Kirkwood
Cmty. Coll., 782 N.W.2d 160, 164 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010).
A court may lack authority to hear a particular case if the statutory
procedures required to invoke the court’s authority are not followed, but that does
not implicate subject matter jurisdiction. See Alliant Energy-Interstate Power &
Light Co. v. Duckett, 732 N.W.2d 869, 875 (Iowa 2007). Here Lautenbach argues
that the foreign judgment could only be transferred to, and thus recognized in, a
county “which would have had venue if the original action was being commenced
in this state.” See Iowa Code § 626A.2(1). Lautenbach asserts because he
resides in Door County, Wisconsin, did not personally own any property in Iowa,
and was not in Iowa for any purpose, he cannot be subject to its jurisdiction.
Drilling down, Lautenbach clarifies that his argument about venue is not made in
the typical mode since no venue in Iowa was appropriate, but the focus on venue
addresses a requirement that must be met to access subject matter jurisdiction of
7
the Iowa district court. Still, this argument goes to personal jurisdiction, not subject
matter jurisdiction.4 And at the core, Lautenbach’s complaint is an improper venue
claim based on whether Lautenbach owned Iowa real estate in Wayne County.5
So, this case is more in line with Board of Directors of the Starmont Community
School District v. Banke, 474 N.W.2d 558, 561–62 (Iowa 1991) abrogated on other
grounds by Anderson v. W. Hodgeman & Sons, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 418, 421 n.3
(Iowa 1994) (addressing venue rules in administrative actions). In Banke, the
district court concluded:
Of importance to the present case is the distinction we drew in
[Christie v. Rolscreen Co., 448 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa 1989)] between
jurisdiction (or authority to hear the case) and venue. As a general
rule, venue designates “[t]he particular county . . . in which a court
with jurisdiction may hear and determine a case.” Black’s Law
Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979). A statutory venue provision is
subject to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure [1.808]. Christie, 448 N.W.2d
at 451. The rule provides that any infirmity in venue is waived unless,
prior to answer, the defendant moves to transfer the case to the
proper county. Id.; see Iowa R. Civ. P. [1.808(1)].
474 N.W.2d at 561–62 (finding the failure to move to transfer venue within the time
allowed defeated defendant’s claim over jurisdiction (second alteration in original)).
And while Lautenbach initially raised general issues about the appropriateness of
filing the foreign judgment in Iowa, those allegations were ruled upon in early 2021
and Lautenbach did not appeal from that decision.
4 The Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution “limits a state’s power to
exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” Shams v. Hassan,
829 N.W.2d 848, 854 (Iowa 2013). Personal jurisdiction can be exercised only if
minimum contacts exist between the state and the individuals so that the state may
reasonably exert jurisdiction over the person. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash.,
326 U.S. 310, 316, 320 (1945).
5 Venue is proper in actions for recovery of real property in the county in which the
property is situated. See Iowa Code § 616.1. Lautenbach waited 359 days to
raise venue.
8
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Benge offered a “that ship has
sailed” analogy and pointed out that Lautenbach waived his improper venue claim
by failing to timely challenge it under the rules. He emphasized, as developed
above, that Lautenbach missed the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction
and venue, by noting “there’s nothing in the Iowa case law or Iowa statutes that
provides the filing of an action in the proper county as a prerequisite to confer any
subject matter jurisdiction on this Court.” Because all of his eggs were in the
subject-matter-jurisdiction basket and that argument proved to be unsuccessful,
Lautenbach’s motion to dismiss was properly denied. We affirm the district court’s
ruling.
Last, going to what Lautenbach calls “subsidiary issues” that are directed to
the merits of the collection case, Lautenbach maintains “the [Heavens Door] trust
is considered a disregarded entity for purposes of execution.” Under his theory in
his appellate brief, he asserts the trust was irrevocable and he was neither a settlor,
trustee, or beneficiary of that trust. Contending he transferred any interest he had
in 2016, Lautenbach maintains the trust assets were not available for collection.
Benge disputes these subsidiary issues are before our court. As a discovery
sanction, the district court ordered that Lautenbach’s pleadings were stricken and
these facts were established:
a. The Trust was not properly established at the time of the
execution of the Warranty Deeds of Defendant purportedly
conveying the residence and lots located in Lineville to the Trust;
b. The Trust is a revocable trust;
c. Defendant is the sole grantor of the Trust;
d. Defendant is the sole beneficiary of the Trust;
e. The Trust is a “disregarded entity”;
f. Defendant is the owner of the assets that he transferred or
attempted to transfer into the Trust.
9
While he continues to dispute the trust ownership issues in his appellate brief,
Lautenbach makes no argument about the merits of the sanctions imposed. We
agree that the issue of the sanctions is not before us, and we find that the district
court’s imposition of sanctions makes the ownership issue moot; so, we do not
address those claims. See Ronnfeldt, 984 N.W.2d at 421 (requiring the litigant to
brief and argue an issue raised).
We affirm the denial of Lautenbach’s motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.