Opinion ID: 2222982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proper party defendant.

Text: We treat plaintiffs' appeal first. Plaintiffs assert trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss as to defendant individually. We agree and reverse. Initially we note several general principles applicable when ruling on a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss should be sustained only when it appears to a certainty that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which any relief may be granted under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claims asserted in the petition. Iowa Truck Center, Inc. v. Davis, 204 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa, filed Feb. 21, 1973); Wheeler v. Waller, 197 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 1972); Dragstra v. Northwestern State Bank of Orange City, 192 N.W. 2d 786 (Iowa 1971); Osbekoff v. Mallory, 188 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1971). For the purpose of testing the legal sufficiency of a petition all its well pleaded facts are assumed true. Id. A motion to dismiss may not be supported by its own allegations of fact, not contained in the petition under attack. Griffith v. Red Oak Community School District, 167 N.W.2d 166 (Iowa 1969); McCarthy v. McCarthy, 162 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 1968); Bales v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 249 Iowa 57, 86 N.W.2d 244 (1957). When the petition is not attacked until after answer, the petition will be liberally construed in favor of plaintiff so as to effectuate justice, and pleader will be given advantage of every reasonable intendment. Iowa City v. Muscatine Development Company, 258 Iowa 1024, 141 N. W.2d 585 (1966); Ontario Livestock Commission Co. v. Flynn, 256 Iowa 116, 126 N.W.2d 362 (1964). Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted must clearly specify wherein the pleading attacked is insufficient. KeWash Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company, 177 N.W.2d 5 (Iowa 1970); Hagenson v. United Telephone Company, 164 N. W.2d 853 (Iowa 1969); Wernet v. Jurgensen, 241 Iowa 833, 43 N.W.2d 194 (1950); Wright v. Copeland, 241 Iowa 447, 41 N. W.2d 102 (1950). If any ground asserted in a motion to dismiss is good, trial court's ruling sustaining motion will be affirmed on appeal, even though ground upon which trial court based its ruling was not good. In re Lone Tree Com. School Dist. of Johnson & Louisa, 159 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 1968); Crawford v. City of Des Moines, 255 Iowa 861, 124 N.W.2d 868 (1963). However, sustention of a motion to dismiss will not be upheld on a ground not asserted in trial court. Thompson v. Burke Engineering Sales Co., 252 Iowa 146, 106 N.W.2d 351 (1960); American Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 246 Iowa 1294, 72 N.W.2d 88 (1955). We now turn to the application of these general rules to the issue at hand. Eliminating all new factual allegations contained in defendant's motion to dismiss, the only specific ground stated in support of the motion was that defendant, as an individual, was not a necessary and proper party to the action. We need not determine whether the motion to dismiss was the proper mode of raising the issue, because we agree with the plaintiffs on the merits. Plaintiffs in essence pleaded an action in replevin. See chapter 643, The Code. The issue in replevin is the right to possession of the property on the date the action is commenced. Iowa Truck Center, Inc. v. Davis, supra; Marx Truck Line, Inc. v. Fredricksen, 260 Iowa 540, 150 N. W.2d 102 (1967); Cassel v. Western Stage Company, 12 Iowa 47 (1861); Kingsbury v. Buchanan, 11 Iowa 387 (1860). When both parties claim ownership of property in dispute, right of possession depends on ownership, and if nothing further appears, it is presumed that the owner is entitled to possession. Varvaris v. Varvaris, 255 Iowa 800, 124 N.W.2d 163 (1963). In neither his motion to dismiss nor on appeal does defendant argue that ownership of stock can not be transferred without manual delivery of the certificates. That issue is not effectively raised in this appeal, so we do not decide it. But assuming as true all allegations of plaintiffs' petition, ownership of the investment securities was transferred to plaintiffs during decedent's lifetime, and therefore the personal representative of decedent had no right to possession of the certificates. Cf. § 633.351, The Code. When plaintiffs' petition was filed no personal representative of decedent had been appointed. According to the record available to us there is no actively serving personal representative at this time. Prior to filing their petition plaintiffs demanded delivery of certificates from defendant. Defendant failed to comply. Since at the time of the petition defendant had not yet been appointed as personal representative, the interest in the property he asserted by not complying with the demand must have been as an individual. We conclude that defendant, as an individual, was a proper party to this action. The case of Herd v. Herd, 71 Iowa 497, 32 N.W. 469 (1887) supports our conclusion. See generally Annot., 42 A.L.R.2d 418, 437-41. Trial court erred in sustaining defendant's motion to dismiss on any of the grounds stated in the motion.