Opinion ID: 1910968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was venue proper in Linn County?

Text: Two sections are relevant to our discussion. Iowa Code section 616.17 provides in part: Personal actions, except as otherwise provided, must be brought in a county in which some of the defendants actually reside, but if neither of them have a residence in the state, they may be sued in any county in which either of them may be found. (Emphasis added.) We have held that section 616.18 falls within the italicized exception. Johnson v. Nelson, 275 N.W.2d 427, 431 (Iowa 1979). Iowa Code section 616.18 provides: Actions arising out of injuries to a person or damage to property may be brought in the county in which the defendant, or one of the defendants, is a resident or in the county in which the injury or damage is sustained. Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in Linn County pursuant to Iowa Code section 616.18. They contend theirs is a personal action under section 616.17, arising out of injuries to a person or damage to property which thus could be brought in the county in which the injury or damage is sustained, pursuant to section 616.18. (1)  Personal action.  There is no real doubt that this suit consisting of various tort claims falls within the meaning of personal action in section 616.17. See Tull v. Honda Research & Dev. Ltd., 469 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Iowa 1991) (personal actions include those brought for damages because of a tort); see also Johnson, 275 N.W.2d at 429 (confirming earlier case law that legal malpractice action is a personal action within meaning of section 616.17). (2)  Arising out of injuries to a person or damage to property.  We will assume, without deciding, that this case presents claims arising out of injuries to a person or damage to property. Cf. Johnson, 275 N.W.2d at 430 (interpreting parallel property clause in section 616.18 broadly). (3)  In which the injury or damage is sustained.  In Johnson, the plaintiff sued the defendant for legal malpractice after the plaintiff's personal injury action was dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 215.1. 275 N.W.2d at 428. We concluded the plaintiff's property (his personal injury action) was damaged by the dismissal. Id. at 430-31. We further concluded that the damage was sustained in Polk County, where the dismissal occurred. Id. at 431. We now make explicit what we believe was implicit in Johnson. Injury is sustained for purposes of Iowa Code section 616.18 in the county where the event or events triggering the lawsuit occurred. Here, the events triggering the plaintiffs' lawsuit all occurred in Benton County. It was there that Jim Becker was arrested, that criminal charges were filed, that a restraining order prohibiting him from having any contact with the Rickels children was issued, and that the child-in-need-of-assistance action was filed. Any injury to plaintiffs' persons or damage to their property was sustained for purposes of section 616.18 in Benton County. Plaintiffs argue, however, that they suffered damage to their reputations in Linn County because they had friends and acquaintances there. Although damage to reputation is certainly an element of damages recoverable in a malicious prosecution case, see Flam v. Lee, 116 Iowa 289, 292-93, 90 N.W. 70, 71 (1902), we do not find the contention controlling. We do not believe the legislature intended to allow venue to lie in any county where collateral consequences related to the actions complained of might be felt. Venue was not proper in Linn County. However, venue was proper in Benton County because that is where some of the defendants actually resided. See Iowa Code § 616.17. Consequently, the district court did not err in granting the defendants' motion for change of venue. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Mershon, 181 Iowa 892, 896, 165 N.W. 86, 87 (1917) (venue was proper only in Lee County; Polk County district court had no discretion and erred in denying motion for change of venue).