Margaret Saddoris, Larry Saddoris, Gary Goodwin, Sheila Goodwin, Steve Harrison, Patty Harrison, John Hamilton, Alice Hamilton, Matt Saddoris, Gary Harrison, Julie Harrison, Ken Bose and Sue Bose
v.
Members of the City Council, Mayor for the City of Jefferson and the City of Jefferson, a Municipal Corporation
Appellant
Margaret Saddoris, Larry Saddoris, Gary Goodwin, Sheila Goodwin, Steve Harrison, Patty Harrison, John Hamilton, Alice Hamilton, Matt Saddoris, Gary Harrison, Julie Harrison, Ken Bose and Sue Bose
Appellee
Members of the City Council, Mayor for the City of Jefferson and the City of Jefferson, a Municipal Corporation
Attorney for the Appellant
Clinton M. Fichter (argued)
Attorney for the Appellee
Julia C. Adams (argued), Zachary D. Clausen, and Douglas L. Phillips
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Jennifer Miller, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. Dissent by Tabor, C.J. (19 pages)
Thirteen property owners in the City of Jefferson appeal the district court’s dismissal of their petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the city council’s decision to rezone a parcel of land. They argue that the court erred in holding that their petition failed to plead sufficient facts showing their standing to challenge the rezoning decision and that it abused its discretion in not letting them amend their petition to allege more facts to cure any deficiency. OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of standing because the mere ownership of property in the city—none of which was alleged to be near the rezoned property—does not show a specific personal or legal interest that has been or is imminently likely to be harmed by the rezoning decision. And the property owners’ second argument—that the court should have let them amend their petition—is not preserved for our review. They did not raise this issue to the district court before its dismissal ruling by making a written or oral motion for leave to amend—suggesting at oral argument that they “could amend” the petition “if the Court wishes” is not a motion. What’s more, they could have filed an amended petition—without needing the court’s permission—at any time in the two months between the city moving to dismiss and the court’s dismissal ruling. But they chose not to do so. And asking the court to reconsider its dismissal order to permit an amended petition is too late to raise this new issue. DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe the property owners made a contingent request for leave to amend, and so the district court erred in dismissing the petition.
