Court Opinion

ID: 9657962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:42:25.914813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:50.021353
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice.
I respectfully dissent.
I should first acknowledge failure of the parties to discuss the basis for this dissent. However, it seems important enough to require a further argument so the matter may be fully presented to this court. Put differently, the majority opinion is reasonable when considered within the context of the propositions argued. But section 614.10, Code, 1966, has been ignored and I must therefore dissent.
Plaintiffs sought to have action by the Board of Supervisors reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. It turned out their action was mistaken. They should have sought direct review in the courts by way of certiorari. Their original action, though mistaken, was not unreasonable. Certainly it was not negligent. But while they innocently took the wrong route the statute of limitations (six months) ran its course. The difficulty in choosing the proper forum is well illustrated by Brightman v. Civil Service Commission, Iowa, 171 N.W.2d 612.
We now say in the instant case: “Unless, then, some authority or justification appears which will authorize the suspension of the six month limitation period provided by Rule 319, plaintiffs’ rights thereunder have expired.” I cannot see why *98such authority is not found in Iowa Code, 1966, section 614.10: “If, after the commencement of an action, the plaintiff, for any cause except negligence in its prosecution, fails therein, and a new one is brought within six months thereafter, the second shall, for the purposes herein contemplated, be held a continuation of the first.”
The above statute is still on the books. It has been used for the purpose for which it was intended, Weisz v. Moore, 222 Iowa 492, 265 N.W. 606, 269 N.W. 443, where an excellent analysis of the purpose of the statute may be found with reference to similar statutes in other states and legal encyclopedia statements. See also. McIntire v. Gordon (1936), 231 Iowa 1364, 4 N.W.2d 376.
On the other hand the statute has been so narrowly construed, before and since, that the lawyers have practically abandoned it. Perhaps they feel the statute was figuratively, if not literally, removed from the books by narrow interpretation. See Cooley v. Maine (1918), 183 Iowa 560, 165 N.W. 1015.
It is not the purpose of this dissent to review all of the cases under section 614.10 in detail. Suffice to say we have never said the statute was inapplicable to a case of this kind. The public policy of the statute, which I take to be to allow a litigant a new chance where he has been thrown out of court on a procedural point and not due to his own negligence, should be recognized by this court. This public policy was first articulated by a predecessor statute in the Revised Statutes, 1843, (Terr.), chapter 94, § 9 and carried through our state Codes in its present form, commencing with the 1851 Code, to date.
The litigant should have his day in court and not be eliminated on procedural issues. To this end the legislature has done its part by passing section 614.10. We should do our part by construing the statute liberally to effectuate its purpose and assist the parties in obtaining justice. Section 4.2, Code, 1966.