Opinion ID: 2159046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Witness Veracity

Text: Hill argues the district court should have treated the deputy's determinations of witness veracity as a piece of evidence to be placed on the scales weighing the supporting and detracting evidence for substantiality. In essence, Hill asks us to decide how a reviewing court should treat determinations of veracity by the deputy who personally observed the demeanor of the witness when the reviewing court is judging the commissioner's decision under the substantial evidence rule. Before we review this issue we must first consider whether Hill properly preserved this issue for appellate review. It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal. Meier v. Senecaut III, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). It is not a sensible exercise of appellate review to analyze facts of an issue `without the benefit of a full record or lower court determination[].' Id. (quoting Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 538, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1534, 118 L.Ed.2d 153, 172 (1992)). Hill brought this issue before the district court on the day of the hearing in a supplement to her judicial review brief. This supplemental brief contained no supporting argument, and simply quoted a three-page passage from a book on the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. See generally Arthur Earl Bonfield, Amendments to Iowa Administrative Procedure Act (1998), Chapter 17A, Code of Iowa (House File 667 as adopted): Report on Selected Provisions to Iowa State Bar Association and Iowa State Government 65-68 (1998) [hereinafter Bonfield]. The district court's ruling did not mention this passage or discuss how the judge or commissioner was to weigh the deputy's determinations of witness veracity. When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal. Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 539. We have repeatedly said a rule 1.904(2) motion [2] is the proper method to preserve error `when the district court fails to resolve an issue, claim or other legal theory properly submitted for adjudication.' Id. (quoting Explore Info. Servs. v. Iowa Ct. Info. Sys., 636 N.W.2d 50, 57 (Iowa 2001)). Even if a rule [1.904(2)] motion is not available to a party ... that party must still request a ruling from the district court to preserve error for appeal on an issue presented but not decided. Id. We recognize there is no procedural rule solely dedicated to the preservation of error doctrine so a party may use any means to request the court to make a ruling on an issue. Id. Without a ruling by the trial court for us to review, and with Hill not requesting a ruling, we will not consider this issue on appeal.