Opinion ID: 2232250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Error is assigned for denying plaintiff's motion for a default.

Text: The record shows the application for a writ was filed June 19, 1961, and on same date writ was issued returnable on June 28, 1961. Written notice was likewise given the County Attorney on the 19th. On June 29, 1961, the trial commenced. Plaintiff filed a motion for default due to failure of the defendant, Superintendent of the Mental Health Institute at Clarinda, Iowa, to file an answer as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, 58 I.C.A. Defendant was present in Court and had with him the plaintiff. The County Attorney did not appear and defendant stated he did not desire counsel. Over objection the trial permitted him to dictate his answer into the record stating plaintiff would be given additional time to reply thereto if it was desired. Plaintiff's counsel stated he would consent to give the Doctor time to file a written answer as is required by Rules of Civil Procedure. An answer was dictated which sufficiently presented the issue of mental capacity of plaintiff and her suitability for release from the Mental Institute, where she had been a legally committed patient since May 1951. Plaintiff stated she was ready for trial and proceeded to offer testimony. It is now asserted the Court erred in overruling motion for default and cites Rule 87, R.C.P., as the basis therefor. This rule provides: An appearance without motion or pleading shall have the effect only of submitting to the jurisdiction. The court shall have no power to treat such appearance as sufficient to delay or prevent a default or any other order which would be made in absence thereof, or of timely pleading. However, Section 663.27, provides that in habeas corpus actions the defendant must appear at the proper time and answer the petition, but no verification shall be required to the answer. It would seem that if there be a conflict between Rule 87 and Section 663.27, Section 663.27, being a special rule on habeas corpus, controls over Rule 87, which is a general rule. Under Section 663.27, no one is in default for failure to answer prior to time set to appear for trial. While ordinarily a written answer would have been previously prepared and would be filed on appearance for trial, there is nothing in the statute specifically requiring a written answer. We find no error in allowing the answer to be dictated into the record as was done here, especially in the absence of a showing of prejudice. The trial Court held plaintiff had waived any right to a default by consenting that additional time to file written answer be given defendant if desired. Assuming Rule 87 applicable we think there is support for such ruling in City of Des Moines v. Barnes, 237 Iowa 6, 20 N.W.2d 895.