Motion for Continuance in Iowa

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Continuance

"Many trial continuances are sought on legitimate grounds. In spite of careful plans and diligent preparations, an unanticipated event will on occasion necessarily precipitate a continuance motion." (See State v. LaGrange (1995) 541 N.W.2d 562, 564; State v. Teeters (1992) 487 N.W.2d 346, 348.)

“Trial judges are called upon to do justice to those needing and deserving a continuance, while at the same time resolutely moving the trial assignment toward the speedy resolution of cases.” (See id.)

"The trial judge must sense whether a given continuance motion stems from a legitimate need, or from a wish to delay.” (See id.)

“To obtain a continuance, a moving party must make a showing that substantial justice will be more nearly obtained by granting the continuance.” (See Van Hoff v. State (1989) 447 N.W.2d 665, 669; State v. Ware (1983) 338 N.W.2d 707, 714.)

“Generally, continuances will not be granted for want of defense preparation in the absence of a showing of good excuse.” (See id; State v. Youngbear (1975) 229 N.W.2d 728, 733 (Iowa), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 390.)

“When a defendant claims he needs a continuance for further trial preparation because of some type of surprise or change in circumstances regarding the case, denial of a continuance is proper if the record rebuts the surprise claim.” (See Van Hoff v. State (1989) 447 N.W.2d 665, 669; State v. Slayton (1987) 417 N.W.2d 432, 435.)

Rules for Filing a Motion for Continuance

Rule 1.910 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for continuance.

“Motions for continuance shall be filed without delay after the grounds therefor become known to the party or the party's counsel. Such motion may be amended only to correct a clerical error.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.910(1).)

“No case assigned for trial shall be continued ex parte. All motions for continuance in a case set for trial shall be signed by counsel, if any, and approved in writing by the party represented, unless such approval is waived by court order.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.910(2).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Continuance

“A ruling on a motion for continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See Michael v. Harrison County Rural Electric Cooperative (1980) 292 N.W.2d 417, 419; Countryman v. McMains (1986) 381 N.W.2d 638, 640.)

“We will reverse only when that discretion is abused.” (See Hawkeye Bank Trust, Nat. Ass'n v. Baugh (1990) 463 N.W.2d 22, 26; Black Hawk Cty. v. Jacobsen, No. 2-081 / 01-0875, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 3, 2002).)

"A district court abuses its discretion when the grounds underlying a district court order are clearly untenable or unreasonable." (See Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc. (2018) 908 N.W.2d 235, 241; Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Eagle Labs., Inc. (2015) 865 N.W.2d 528, 535; Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Inc. City of Spencer (2004) 682 N.W.2d 62, 66.)

“A district court's ruling on a motion for a continuance is presumptively correct, and a party challenging the ruling has a heavy burden to overcome the presumption.” (See Netteland v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. (1993) 510 N.W.2d 162, 167; Rattenborg v. Montgomery Elevator Co. (1989) 438 N.W.2d 602, 605.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Continuance

It is well settled that “a motion for continuance shall not be granted except for good cause.” (See In re W.D., No. 18-1768, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2019).)

It is also well settled that “the denial of a motion to continue must be unreasonable under the circumstances to warrant reversal.” (See In re W.D., No. 18-1768, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2019).)