Opinion
No. 3-956 / 03-0592.
Filed December 24, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Dale B. Hagen, Judge.
Matthew Allen appeals from the district court's ruling on a motion to interpret a Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. AFFIRMED.
Peter Riley of Tom Riley Law Firm, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Michael Cunningham of Howe, Cunningham Lowe, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Matthew Allen appeals from the district court's ruling on his motion to interpret a Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. He claims the court should have found the decree granted him a right of redemption. We affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On August 6, 2001, U.S. Bank National Association, N.D., (U.S. Bank) filed a petition seeking to foreclose a mortgage given by Allen and his former spouse, Zina Allen. In its petition, the bank elected foreclosure without redemption. On August 29, 2001, Allen filed an answer and counterclaim. The court entered an order of default against Zina Allen on November 19, 2001.
On October 7, 2002, U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, which Allen resisted. On November 8, 2002, the court granted U.S. Bank's motion and instructed counsel for U.S. Bank to submit a proposed judgment entry to the court for signature and filing. The Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure, which U.S. Bank's counsel prepared for the court, was filed on November 15, 2002. The judgment and decree did not specifically grant a right of redemption, but did contain some language referring to redemption. None of the parties appealed from the court's Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure.
On January 31, 2003, Allen filed a Motion to Interpret Judgment. He claimed that the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure was uncertain, ambiguous, and inconsistent regarding whether there was a right of redemption. He asked the court to "determine whether Defendant, Matthew Allen has a right of redemption." On February 4, 2003, the mortgaged property was sold without redemption at a sheriff's sale to third parties. Following hearing on Allen's motion, the court entered a ruling on March 7, 2003, finding that the sale was without redemption. Allen appeals.
II. Analysis
Allen claims the district court erred in failing to interpret the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure entered November 15, 2002, to grant him a right of redemption from the mortgage foreclosure sale because the decree contains language referring to redemption. Upon review of the record, we disagree.
A decree is susceptible to interpretation on the same basis as other written instruments. Dairyland, Inc. v. Jenison, 207 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 1973). "The determinative factor is the intention of the court as gathered from all parts of the judgment." Id. (citing Whittier v. Whittier, 237 Iowa 665, 663, 23 N.W.2d 435, 440 (1946)). Effect must be given to that which is clearly implied as well as to that which is expressed. Dairyland, Inc., 207 N.W.2d at 754. "We give weight to the fact the court was ascertaining its own intention." Id. at 755. The circumstances under which the decree was issued are also relevant to show its meaning. Id.
Allen acknowledges that U.S. Bank, in its initial petition, specifically sought a "foreclosure without redemption." He acknowledges that the petition contained the proper disclosure and notice requirements under Iowa Code sections 654.18(f) and 654.20 (2001). Allen also acknowledges that neither he nor his ex-wife filed a demand for delay of sale or appealed from the Judgment and Decree of Foreclosure. Finally, Allen does not dispute that under the court's decree the purchaser of the property was entitled to a sheriff's deed. We conclude the district court did not err when it ruled Allen did not have a right of redemption from the mortgage foreclosure sale.
AFFIRMED.