Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holmes v. Polk City Savings Bank

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 25, 1979No. 62186Published

1DissentUhlenhopp, Justice

I. I have endeavored to reach the same result as the court majority but am unable to do so because of rules 87 and 49(a) of our Rules of Civil Procedure. The original notice did not tell the Holmeses they had to “defend.” On the contrary, it informed them as one alternative that they could serve and file an “appearance.” Yet rule 87 states:

An appearance without motion or pleading shall have the effect only of submitting to the jurisdiction. The court shall have no power to treat such appearance as sufficient to delay or prevent a default or any other order which would be made in absence…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. White v. O'NEILLSupreme Court of Iowa · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API