Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 110 / 07-0610 Filed January 18, 2008 HEATHER JOYE SCHOTT, Appellant, vs. JAMIE LEE SCHOTT, Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall, Judge.

Parties appeal district court's decision holding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Catherine K. Levine, Des Moines, and Carmen L. Janssen, West Des Moines, for appellant.

Tammi M. Blackstone and Carlton J. Salmons of Gaudineer, Comito & George, L.L.P., West Des Moines, for appellee.

2 STREIT, Justice. Jamie and Heather were in a committed relationship, which lasted several years. They have two children. Jamie is the children's natural parent and Heather is their adoptive parent. After the parties ended

their relationship, Heather filed a petition requesting a determination on child custody, physical care, and support. Before ruling on the petition, the district court questioned whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. The court found Heather's adoptions of the children were contrary to Iowa's adoption statute and therefore invalid. Consequently, the district court held it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on Heather's petition. On appeal, we find it was inappropriate for the district court to collaterally attack the adoptions. Heather is the children's legal parent and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on her petition. We remand for further proceedings. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

Jamie and Heather began their relationship in the summer of 2000. Sometime thereafter, Jamie and her minor son Caleb moved into Heather's home. In November 2001, Heather adopted Caleb after the

parental rights of Caleb's natural father were terminated. In April 2004, Jamie gave birth to Tori. Jamie had become pregnant through artificial insemination with an anonymous donor's sperm. Heather adopted Tori about six months after she was born. Jamie consented to both

adoptions and her parental rights were unaffected. After Heather and Jamie ended their relationship, Heather filed a petition in January 2007 seeking a determination on physical care, custody, and support of the children. Jamie's answer acknowledged In a counterclaim, Jamie

Heather's status as the children's parent.

3 alleged a marriage and requested alimony and division of the parties' assets. Heather moved to dismiss Jamie's counterclaim on the ground the parties were not legally married. The district court appointed Diane Dornburg as guardian ad litem. The district court raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and stayed all previous orders. After hearing arguments on the matter, the district court dismissed Heather's petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held Heather's adoptions of Caleb and

Tori were contrary to Iowa's adoption statute and therefore invalid. The court reasoned that because Heather was a legal stranger to the children, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on her petition. The district court also found Jamie's counterclaim improper because it used language contained in our dissolution of marriage statute. See In re Marriage of Martin, 681 N.W.2d 612, 619 (Iowa 2004) (stating "[t]he rights and remedies of chapter 598--the laws governing divorce--are not otherwise available to unmarried persons"). The court noted Jamie was not without a remedy; she had the option of asserting her claims under proper legal theories. See id. (noting "potential theories to support

property claims between unmarried cohabitants [include] claims of contract, unjust enrichment, resulting trust, constructive trust, and joint venture"). The parties and the guardian ad litem contested the district court's decision by filing a flurry of papers which need not be catalogued here. While allowing Heather's appeal to proceed, we remanded the case back to the district court for the purpose of (1) establishing temporary physical care, visitation, if applicable, and child support; (2) ruling on pending motions to reconsider; and (3) appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the children on appeal.

4 On appeal, both parties contend the adoptions were valid and ask us to find the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.1 Jamie does not appeal the district court's decision with respect to her counterclaim. For the reasons that follow, we find it was inappropriate for the district court to collaterally attack Heather's adoptions of the children. The

court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine the issues relating to the children. We need not address the parties' alternative arguments. II. Scope of Review.

Because this case was tried in equity, our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. III. Merits.

Courts may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. State v. Lasley, 705 N.W.2d 481, 485 (Iowa 2005). "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." Klinge v. Bentien, 725 N.W.2d 13, 15 (Iowa 2006) (quotations omitted). The parties

themselves cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. Id. Rather, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution or a statute. Id. The Iowa district court is a court of general jurisdiction. Schrier v. State, 573 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1997). It is empowered by the Iowa Constitution to hear all cases in law and equity. Iowa Const. art. V,

Download HEATHER JOYE SCHOTT vs. JAMIE LEE SCHOTT.pdf

Iowa Law