Opinion ID: 1823830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Matters Outside the Pleadings.

Text: The medical center supported its motion to dismiss with a copy of the docket entries in the probate file and the probate court's order closing the estate. Similarly, Lirot attached a copy of the executor's final report (without exhibits) to her resistance to the motion to dismiss. Neither the parties nor the district court appeared to be concerned by the consideration of matters extraneous to the pleadings in disposing of the medical center's motion. Nevertheless, we point out that a motion to dismiss is directed to the pleadings and therefore, facts outside the pleadings should not be considered. Troester v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 328 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Iowa 1982). When the parties want to rely on facts not contained in the pleadings, the more appropriate procedure to follow is that outlined for summary judgments. Id. at 311 (citing Iowa R.Civ.P. 237-240). Despite these general principles, we found it proper in Troester for the district court to consider facts extraneous to the pleadings where those facts arose after the petition was filed and were undisputed by the parties and where the issue raised in the motion was the plaintiff's capacity to sue. Id. We acted similarly in Berger v. General United Group, Inc., 268 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1978). There we considered facts outside the pleadings in reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss because the parties did not object to the district court's consideration of those facts and the issues related to the plaintiff's ability to bring the suit. Berger, 268 N.W.2d at 634-35. The Berger and Troester cases can be contrasted with Warford v. Des Moines Metropolitan Transit Authority, 381 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1986). In Warford, we refused to consider facts not found in the petition because the parties had no notice that the district court intended to rely on extraneous facts until they received the court's ruling and because the issue raised in the motion was whether the petition stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Warford, 381 N.W.2d at 624. We will reluctantly consider the extraneous facts here for three reasons. First, the parties relied on the materials from the probate file in their briefing and submission of this case to the district court and on appeal. Second, the materials from the probate file generally confirm facts that are already apparent from the allegations of the petition. Those facts are that at the time the petition was filed the estate had been closed and not reopened. The only new facts added by these materials are the failure of the executor to expressly dispose of the estate's wrongful death claim and Lirot's status as one of the beneficiaries under the will. However, as we discuss below, these additional facts are not determinative of Lirot's capacity to sue on behalf of the estate anyway. Finally, we consider the additional facts because the issue raised here, as in Troester, is the plaintiff's capacity to sue rather than the adequacy of the petition to state a claim for relief. Despite our minimal consideration of extraneous facts, we note, as we did in Berger, that our action should not be used as a basis to ignore the limited scope of a motion to dismiss as set forth in rule 104(b) and our cases interpreting it. See Berger, 268 N.W.2d at 635.