Opinion ID: 2233444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Reconsidered Summary Judgment Motions.

Text: Stockdale contends that, in any event, there were issues of material fact as to Berns' actual knowledge of the proposed sale and that summary judgment was not appropriate. Its only resistance to Berns' motion for summary judgment, however, was based on the fact that Berns was not entitled to notice under the statute. It did not assert, nor did it furnish affidavits to support, any theory that Berns had actual notice of the proposed sale. After the court originally granted Berns' summary judgment and Stockdale moved to reconsider, it attempted to bolster its position by filing an affidavit which, for the first time, asserted that Berns had actual notice. As the district court correctly observed, the affidavits were not timely under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 237 and should not have been considered. Under the posture of the case as it was at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the only issue was a legal one, whether Berns was entitled to notice, and the district court correctly resolved that issue in Berns' favor. We find no reversible error. AFFIRMED.