Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-945 / 08-0837 Filed December 17, 2008

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SARAH J. UNTRAUER AND JASON B. UNTRAUER Upon the Petition of SARAH J. UNTRAUER, Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning JASON B. UNTRAUER, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Edward A. Jacobson, Judge.

A wife appeals the dismissal of her dissolution of marriage petition for lack of jurisdiction. AFFIRMED.

Robert Deck, Sioux City, for appellant. Bradford Kollars, Sioux City, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.

2 VAITHESWARAN, J. Sarah Untrauer appeals the dismissal of her dissolution of marriage petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Jason and Sarah Untrauer married in Iowa. In 2003, they moved to Sarah also

Connecticut so that Jason could pursue post-graduate studies. attended college in Connecticut.

Both paid in-state tuition, both obtained

Connecticut drivers' licenses, both registered their vehicles in Connecticut, both registered to vote in Connecticut, both voted in Connecticut, and both filed Connecticut income tax returns. Sarah returned to Iowa in January 2008. The following month, she filed a dissolution petition in Iowa. Jason moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that neither party was a resident of Iowa. The parties filed multiple affidavits and submitted briefs on the issue.1 After considering the affidavits and arguments, the district court granted Jason's motion. This appealed followed. Our review of the district court's ruling is for errors of law, with the court's fact findings binding us if supported by substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Kimura, 471 N.W.2d 869, 877 (Iowa 1991) (stating pre-answer motion to dismiss replaces special appearance, which is no longer available under the Iowa Rules
1

Citing Iowa Code section 598.9 (2007), Sarah now contends she should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing on the residency issue. That provision states, "If the averments as to residence are not fully proved, the hearing shall proceed no further, and the action be dismissed by the court." Sarah did not request an evidentiary hearing or object to the absence of an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, this argument is waived. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) ("It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.").

3 of Civil Procedure); Morris v. Morris, 197 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Iowa 1972) (stating review of adjudication on special appearance confined to "errors assigned" with court's findings binding if supported by substantial evidence). II. Analysis Where the respondent in a dissolution action is not a resident of Iowa and has not been personally served, the dissolution petition must state that the petitioner has been for the last year a resident of the state, specifying the county in which the petitioner has resided and the length of such residence in the state after deducting all absences from the state, and that the maintenance of the residence has been in good faith and not for the purpose of obtaining a dissolution of marriage only. Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SARAH J. UNTRAUER AND JASON B. UNTRAUER Upon the Petition

Iowa Law