Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-813 / 11-0057 Filed December 21, 2011

CRYSTAL M. BLANCHARD, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. JEFFREY A. HOUDEK, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.

Crystal Blanchard appeals from the district court's ruling that declined to divide property accumulated by unmarried persons after cohabitation.

AFFIRMED.

Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun & White, L.L.P., Charles City, for appellant. Richard N. Tompkins, Jr. of Tompkins Law Office, Mason City, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.

2 VOGEL, J. Crystal Blanchard appeals from the district court's ruling that declined to divide property accumulated by unmarried persons after cohabitation. She

asserts the district court erred in not clearly ruling whether it had jurisdiction to address the property issues. She alternatively contends the district court erred in not equitably dividing the property. We find the court made a clear ruling that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under our constitution or statutes, and because a separate legal theory, which would provide subject matter jurisdiction, was neither pleaded nor raised, we affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Crystal Blanchard and Jeffrey Houdek began to cohabitate in the fall of 1998. Shortly after the parties' son, J.H., was born in February 1999, Blanchard moved, securing her own residence. Nonetheless, the relationship between

Blanchard and Houdek continued, and the two resumed their cohabitation in 2000. The parties' daughter E.H. was born in 2006. In May 2008, the pa rties separated, but maintained an on-again-off-again relationship until May 2009. In 2002, Houdek purchased a house, using the equity from his former house. Only his name was shown on the buyer's closing statement and on the warranty deed. Blanchard and Houdek disputed who paid for various

improvements to the house. The parties also purchased several vehicles, a boat, a camper, and other personal property during the course of their relationship. On October 6, 2009, Blanchard filed a petition in equity for "Joint Legal Custody, Physical Care, Child Support, and Division of Property." The matter came on for hearing on September 23, 2010. Prior to taking any evidence,

3 Houdek disputed the district court's authority to decide the property issues to which the district court stated: We will be taking evidence on that today. Right now my position is that I don't have authority to do that, but I may be convinced otherwise and at least we have it in the record as offer of proof in the event that I stick with that position. On December 9, 2010, the district court ruled as to legal custody and physical care of the children, as well as other related issues such as visitation and child support. As to the property division the district court found: The court does not generally have authority to divide property accumulated by unmarried persons based upon cohabitation. In re Marriage of Martin, 681 N.W.2d 612, 619 (Iowa 2004). The court further concludes that Blanchard did not timely assert or successfully show an alternative legal basis for property division or settlement, including theories of contract, unjust enrichment, resulting or constructive trust or joint venture. On January 4, 2011, Blanchard filed a notice of appeal. On March 21, 2011, Blanchard filed a motion for limited remand pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1004. In the motion for limited remand, Blanchard stated: The movant, Crystal M. Blanchard is requesting that the Appellate Court grant a limited remand of the property issues to the district court for entry of an order granting the motion of the Respondent/Appellee's counsel for dismissal of the property claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Emphasis added). Our supreme court denied the motion on April 27, 2011. II. Standard of Review Our review of actions tried in equity is de novo. Green v. Wilderness Ridge, L.L.C., 777 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 2010). We review questions of

jurisdiction, authority, and venue for correction of errors at law. In re Marriage of Engler, 532 N.W.2d 747, 748 (Iowa 1995).

4 III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Authority Blanchard contends the district court erred in not clearly ruling whether it had jurisdiction to decide the property issues in this case.1 As sub-issues, she asserts jurisdiction was "conferred" on the court by the pleadings or waived during the trial. Central to her claim is her position that the jurisdictional issue is not one of general subject matter jurisdiction, but involves the question of whether the court has authority to consider the property issue in this particular case. Our supreme court has distinguished questions involving subject matter jurisdiction and questions involving authority as follows: Courts may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. 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. The parties themselves cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. Rather, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by constitution or statute. The Iowa district court is a court of general jurisdiction. It is empowered by the Iowa Constitution to hear all cases in law and equity. The legislature may prescribe regulations for the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised, but it cannot limit the court's jurisdiction. Schott v. Schott, 744 N.W.2d 85, 87

Download CRYSTAL M. BLANCHARD, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. JEFFREY A. HOUDEK, Respondent-Ap

Iowa Law