Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment in Iowa

What Is a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Judgment

“The purpose of a rule 1.904(2) motion is to reconsider the evidence already submitted, not to give the parties an opportunity to submit additional evidence to support their positions.” (See Homan v. Branstad (2016) 887 N.W.2d 153, 161; In re Marriage of Roberts (2020) 954 N.W.2d 757, 762.)

“When a ruling is strictly limited to a question of law, a motion to reconsider amounts to nothing more than a rehash of the legal question.” (See Meier v. Senecaut (2002) 641 N.W.2d 532, 538.)

“A proper rule 1.904(2) motion does not merely seek reconsideration of an adverse district court judgment. Nor does it merely seek to rehash legal issues adversely decided.” (See Gupton v. Brown (In re Marriage of Gupton), No. 16-1784, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2017); Homan v. Branstad (2016) 887 N.W.2d 153, 161.)

“A rule 1.904(2) motion is ordinarily improper if it seeks to enlarge or amend a district court ruling on a question of law involving no underlying issues of fact. Likewise, a rule 1.904(2) motion that asks the district court to amend or enlarge its prior ruling based solely on new evidence is generally improper.” (See id.)

“Ordinarily, a proper rule 1.904(2) motion asks the district court to amend or enlarge either a ruling on a factual issue or a ruling on a legal issue raised in the context of an underlying factual issue based on the evidence in the record.” (See id.)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Judgment

Rule 1.904 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to reconsider, enlarge, or amend.

“On motion joined with or filed within the time allowed for a motion for new trial, the findings and conclusions may be reconsidered, enlarged, or amended and the judgment or decree modified accordingly or a different judgment or decree substituted. Resistances to such motions and replies may be filed and supporting briefs may be served as provided in rules 1.431(4) and 1.431(5).” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Judgment

“We review the court's grant of a motion to amend for an abuse of discretion.” (See Baker v. City of Iowa City (2015) 867 N.W.2d 44, 51; Widdison v. Widdison (In re Marriage of Widdison), No. 17-2034, at *6 n.3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2018).)

“A trial court has considerable discretion as to whether a motion to amend should be granted or denied and we will reverse only where a clear abuse of discretion is shown.” (See Bradbery v. Dubuque County, No. 0-617 / 99-1881, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2001).)

"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.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Judgment

It is well settled that “a motion to reconsider is not the proper avenue to submit new evidence for the court to consider.” (See St. John's Full Gospel Baptist Church v. Tax 207 & Polk Cnty. Treasurer (2012) 819 N.W.2d 426; Marriage of Bolick (1995) 539 N.W.2d 357, 361 [Motions under rule [1.904] are permitted so that courts may enlarge or modify findings based on evidence already in the record. They are not vehicles for parties to retry issues based on new facts].)

As such, it is also well settled that a "proper motion does not merely seek reconsideration of an adverse district court judgment or merely seek to rehash legal issues adversely decided. The motion is improper if it seeks to enlarge or amend a district court ruling on a question of law involving no underlying issues of fact or asks the court to amend or enlarge its decision based solely on new evidence." (See Jervik v. DPD, Ltd., No. 16-0381, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017); Homan v. Branstad (2016) 887 N.W.2d 153, 161.)

Dockets for Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment in Iowa

Sort By

AMENDMENT MARRIAGE CETIFICATE OF B.FAIRCHAILD & M.LINDQUIST

Filed

May 09, 2024

Court

District

County

Clarke County, IA

Case #