Opinion ID: 2159927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We are faced initially with a procedural matter. Wellman filed its motion to dismiss on June 4, 1986. Bobenhouse and Steel Cruiser joined in a motion to dismiss which was filed on June 6, 1986. On August 5, 1986, the district court sustained Wellman's motion and dismissed Squires' petition. On August 7, 1986, by way of nunc pro tunc order, the district court realized it had inadvertently omitted two defendants from the [August 5] ruling on the motions to dismiss, and amended [the August 5 ruling] to include and sustain [the motion of Bobenhouse and Steel Cruiser]. Squires' original and amended notices of appeal refer only to the district court's August 7 ruling. Wellman, whose motion was the subject of the August 5 ruling, now maintains we have no jurisdiction over Squires' appeal against it because the notice of appeal did not refer to the August 5 ruling. Our rules of appellate procedure provide that a notice of appeal shall specify the parties taking the appeal and the decree, judgment, order or part thereof appealed from. Iowa R.App.P. 6(a). In applying the forerunner of rule 6(a), we stated the following guiding principles: Substantial compliance with the provisions of rule 336 is sufficient. In considering the sufficiency of the content of the notice we now hold that if the intent of the appellant to appeal from a judgment may be inferred from the text of the notice and if the appellee has not been misled by the defect the appeal will be entertained. This more liberal rule of construction is consistent with our oft repeated preference for disposition of cases on the merits and not on mere technicalities. Hawkeye Sec. Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 199 N.W.2d 373, 378 (Iowa 1972) (citations omitted). In the context of the present appeal it is important to note that a nunc pro tunc entry makes the record show now what was actually done then. McVay v. Kenneth E. Montz Implement Co., 287 N.W.2d 149, 150 (Iowa 1980). The purpose of such an order is to make the record show truthfully what judgment was actually rendered. General Mills Inc. v. Prall, 244 Iowa 218, 225, 56 N.W.2d 596, 600 (1953). Our statutes grant the district court nunc pro tunc authority only to correct an evident mistake. Iowa Code § 602.17 (1983). The district court's August 7 nunc pro tunc order amended its August 5 ruling so as to include and sustain Bobenhouse and Steel Cruiser's motion to dismiss. Squires' notice of appeal, although referring to the August 7 date, noted that Squires was appealing the district court's disposition of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.... By referring to motions in the plural, we think Squires expressed an intent to appeal not only the ruling on the motion submitted by Bobenhouse and Steel Cruiser but also the ruling on Wellman's motion. We note that Wellman makes no contention that they were in any way misled by Squires' notice of appeal. We dealt with a similar issue in In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Ankeney, 360 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa 1985). There, the controlling issue on appeal was whether the district court, sitting in probate, possessed the authority to direct a guardian to provide a ward's access to a grandparent. Id. at 734. The district court had done so by order dated August 1, 1983. Id. at 735. On August 8, 1983, however, the district court entered a further order specifying the visitation schedule. Id. The notice of appeal was addressed to the August 8, but not to the August 1, order. Id. In upholding our jurisdiction, we concluded both that the earlier order was included by a literal reading of the notice's language and that the notice met our requirement of substantial compliance with the rule of appellate procedure. Id. at 735-36. We think a similar analysis should prevail here. Squires' notices stated that she was appealing the district court's ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss. From this we may certainly infer she sought review both of Wellman's motion and of Bobenhouse and Steel Cruiser's motion. Although she mentioned only the date of the nunc pro tunc order, that order simply set forth what was actually accomplished by the August 5 ruling. See McVay, 287 N.W.2d at 150. We think the notice was sufficient to confer jurisdiction in this court over defendant Wellman as well as over the other two defendants.