Opinion ID: 1622904
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consequences for Failing to Request Mandatory Mediation

Text: Bentien argues Klinge's failure to file a mediation request and receive a mediation release deprived the small claims court of subject matter jurisdiction. We treat Bentien's letter to the district court as a motion to dismiss. Halverson v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 532 N.W.2d 794, 799 (Iowa 1995) (noting failure to attach a label to a motion does not determine its legal significance because we look to the motion's content to determine the motion's real nature). We must decide whether it was error not to dismiss both claims. In 1999, a federal district court examined section 654B.3. Rutter v. Carroll's Foods of the Midwest, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 876, 881-82 (N.D.Iowa 1999). Because neither appellate court in Iowa had passed on the question of whether obtaining a mediation release under chapter 654B is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction or authority, the court in Rutter predicted how this court would interpret section 654B.3. Id. at 882. Instead of using our terminology, the court in Rutter used jurisdictional prerequisite to refer to subject matter jurisdiction and condition precedent to refer to the authority of a court to hear a case. Id. The court concluded obtaining a mediation release under chapter 654B is a condition precedent to suit, not a jurisdictional prerequisite. As such, the defect of failing to obtain such a release does not affect the claimant's standing or the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, but is instead curable after suit has been filed. Id. at 882-83 (emphasis added). As a result, the court stayed the case in order for the plaintiffs to attempt to cure the defect. Id. at 883. We see the merit in our learned friend's conclusion, although we would have articulated the issue as a matter of the court's authority to hear the particular case rather than a condition precedent to suit. However, in 2000 the legislature amended section 654B.3 by stating that filing a mediation request and obtaining a mediation release are jurisdictional prerequisites to a person filing a civil action . . . to resolve a dispute subject to this chapter. 2000 Iowa Acts ch. 1129, § 2 (codified at Iowa Code § 654B.3(1)( b )). The timing of the amendment, the use of the federal court's term jurisdictional prerequisites, and the introductory statement to the bill indicate the legislature intended a different result than that of the Rutter decision. When interpreting a statute, we are obliged to examine both the language used and the purpose for which the legislation was enacted. Fjords North, Inc. v. Hahn, 710 N.W.2d 731, 739 (Iowa 2006) (citing Albrecht v. Gen. Motors Corp., 648 N.W.2d 87, 89 (Iowa 2002) (We seek to interpret statutes consistently with their language and purpose, and avoid interpretations that are unreasonable.)). The explanation accompanying the introduced version of the amendment sheds light on the legislature's intention. It states: This bill amends the mandatory mediation provisions of two Code sections relating to resolution of farm disputes. The bill specifies that the mediation requirements in Code sections 654A.6 and 654B.3 are jurisdictional prerequisites that must be satisfied before a case can be filed under the chapters. A 1999 federal district court ruling held that the current Code language did not prevent the filing of a suit under chapter 654B prior to mediation of the dispute. H.F. 2521; see City of Cedar Rapids v. James Properties, Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2005) (We give weight to explanations attached to bills as indications of legislative intent.). It is obvious from this explanation the legislature intended to respond to Rutter. See id. (citing Midwest Auto. III, LLC v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417, 425-26 (Iowa 2002) ([A]n amendment to a statute raises a presumption that the legislature intended a change in the law.)). The polestar of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent of a statute. We consider the objects sought to be accomplished and the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, seeking a result that will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose. State v. Schultz, 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999) (citations omitted). We must conclude the legislature intended obtaining a mediation release from the farm mediation service to be a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction. Klinge's failure to file a mediation request and obtain a mediation release before filing his claim deprived the small claims court of subject matter jurisdiction. [2] As a result, both the small claims court order and the district court's decision are void. The district court should have granted Bentien's motion to dismiss.