John C. Marek Jr.
v.
The City Development Board of the State of Iowa and Henry County, Iowa, and Dan Johnson and Linda Johnson
Defendants in a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of their tort judgment against the City of Mt. Union following its discontinuance appealed a district court order granting plaintiffs summary judgment. Defendants contended the court erred by declaring their money judgment was void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs cross-appealed a district court ruling finding judicial review was the exclusive means for plaintiffs to challenge final agency action by defendant City Development Board and granting the Board’s motion to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed on defendants’ appeal and reversed and remanded on plaintiffs’ cross-appeal. The City Development Board seeks further review.
Resister
John C. Marek Jr.
Applicant
The City Development Board of the State of Iowa and Henry County, Iowa, and Dan Johnson and Linda Johnson
Attorney for the Resister
Steven E. Ort
Attorneys for the Applicant
Curtis R. Dial
Emily M. Willits
Alan W. Nagel
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Mar 23, 2021 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, John M. Wright, Judge. AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON CROSS-APPEAL. Heard by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. Partial Dissent by May, J. (24 pages)
This case involves the aftermath of the discontinuance of the City of Mount Union. Dan and Linda Johnson appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs declaring the Johnsons’ money judgment void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs cross-appeal the district court’s granting of the motion to dismiss filed by the City Development Board of the State of Iowa (Board). OPINION HOLDS: We find summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiffs, as the judgment entered is void due to the judgment being entered against an entity that no longer exists. Because there is a conceivable state of facts under which the plaintiffs might show a right of recovery on their claims for declaratory relief against the Board, the dismissal of such claims is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings on those claims. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I agree with the majority that we should affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. I would also affirm the district court's grant of the motion to dismiss. As to that issue, I respectfully dissent.