Opinion ID: 1722015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compliance with Section 6B.18.

Text: The Norgards assert the district court erred in finding their appeal was untimely. In addition, they contend the court erred in finding that the notice of appraisement and time for appeal they received substantially complied with the requirements of section 6B.18. Review of these issues is for errors of law. Wade Farms, Inc. v. City of Weldon, 419 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Iowa 1988).
The Norgards argue that Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 83(b) saves their appeal from being untimely. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 83(b) provides in pertinent part: Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon him and the notice or paper is served upon him by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period. We conclude that rule 83(b) only applies to measure time under deadlines established by the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure. It does not apply to situations in which the time in which a particular action must be taken is fixed by statute. Cf. Messina v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 341 N.W.2d 52, 56-57 (Iowa 1983) (in which we made reference to rule 83(b) but then failed to apply that rule in computing time under a statute). Sections 6B.18 and 6B.19 establish the time in which an appeal of the compensation commission's award must be taken. Thus, we find rule 83(b) does not apply and the district court correctly concluded the Norgards' appeal of the compensation commission's award was untimely and deprived the court of jurisdiction. See Wade Farms, 419 N.W.2d at 723.
The Norgards contend the notice of appraisement and time for appeal was defective because it did not show the date of appraisement and did not indicate the date it was signed or sent. They argue, therefore, the defective notice excuses their untimely appeal. We have held that [w]hile statutory provisions regulating the exercise of eminent domain must be strictly complied with ... this does not necessarily mean literal compliance with the notice statute is required; substantial conformity is sufficient. S.M.B. Invs. v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Elec. Co., 329 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 1983) (holding the notice of condemnation substantially complied with statute requiring that it apprise condemnee of the interests in the particular land which condemnor seeks and noting that if the condemnee had any doubts about the nature of interest in their property being sought it could have merely looked at IowaIllinois' application for condemnation filed with the chief judge of the district court....). We find the notice of appraisement and time for appeal, which informed the Norgards of their right to appeal and when the appeal must be taken, substantially conformed with the requirements of section 6B.18.