Opinion ID: 1934211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Fairness Argument.

Text: Dolezal's first fall-back position is that we should view the defendants' failure to file an answer or motion before appealing to our court as their clear intention to ignore the case entirely and remain in default. Because of this failure, Dolezal insists that in fairness we should not apply rule 231(b) to his demand for default. In support of his position, Dolezal points to our decision in Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha v. INA, the catalyst for the rule change. 513 N.W.2d 750, 757 (Iowa 1994). In Central, we suggested a rule that notice be given before a default is taken to make our default rule more fair and consistent. Id. We believed such a rule would avoid having to determine pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 236 whether the default resulted from a bungle, constituting excusable neglect, or from a party's intention not to defend. See id. at 756. In the former but not the latter case, the district court under a four-part test could set aside a default. Id. Dolezal now suggests that under all the circumstances fairness dictates we should not apply rule 231(b) to him because the defendants clearly have shown they did not intend to defend. The short answer to Dolezal's argument is that the distinction between defendants who do not defend because of excusable neglect and those defendants who simply do not intend to defend is irrelevant on the question whether rule 231(b) applies. The rule plainly provides that no default shall be entered unless the ten-day notice is given before the application for default is filed. The rule makes no distinction between excusable neglect and an intention not to defend. In addition, the rule does not require an answer or motion by the party against whom the default is sought. And we will not read such a requirement into the rule. Dolezal's fairness argument is inconsistent with the purpose underlying rule 231(b). Rule 231(b) is intended to flush out the real reason why a defendant has not responded to an original notice. If there truly is a bungle, a ten-day notice is a reasonable vehicle to alert the defendant to the mistake and to prompt a response. If there is no response, the plaintiff can reasonably assume that the defendant does not intend to defend and can then proceed to take a default.