No. 4-531 / 03-1535.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.
Respondent appeals various adverse rulings in this action to enforce provisions of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED ANDREMANDED.
Marlyn S. Jensen, Osceola, for appellant.
Joseph W. Seidlin of Culp, Doran, Seidlin Genest, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Barbara Romar of Barbara Durden Romar, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
EISENHAUER, J.
Michael Mastin and Lasonia Mastin were divorced in August 1981. The children of the parties are now thirty-three and thirty-one. On July 7, 2003, the Child Support Recovery Unit (“CSRU”) issued an administrative levy on certain of Michael’s bank accounts. In response, Michael pursued an administrative challenge to the levy. Prior to the conclusion of administrative proceedings, however, Michael filed a “Motion to Quash, Application for Stay Order, and Petitioner’s Application for Declaratory Judgment,” which he had personally served on Lasonia. The court granted a temporary stay and set a hearing.
The CSRU filed a resistance. In addition to the CSRU’s resistance, Michael’s filing provoked a blizzard of filings by Lasonia. Four days before the scheduled hearing, Lasonia filed 1) a resistance to Michael’s filing, 2) an answer to his application for declaratory judgment and two “counterclaims” (a claim for medical expense reimbursement and a claim for college expense reimbursement), 3) a “Motion to Continue a Portion of the Proceeding and to Discontinue any Summary Procedure for Declaratory Judgment,” 4) a “Motion to Produce,” 5) counterclaims in tort, 6) a request for jury trial on the counterclaims in tort, 7) a motion to bifurcate, and 8) an application alleging contempt and requesting a show cause hearing.
After the hearing on Petitioner’s filing, the trial court dismissed petitioner’s motions and dissolved the stay, concluding it had no jurisdiction while the administrative proceedings were still pending. After this decision, Lasonia requested specific rulings on all of her filings. Aside from ordering that a contempt hearing be scheduled, the trial court overruled all of Lasonia’s pending motions. Lasonia appeals, making several imaginative arguments. We review this matter de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Aside from the dismissal of Lasonia’s counterclaims, we affirm without opinion. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.24.
Lasonia’s counterclaims deserve some discussion. We agree that the district court properly dismissed, without prejudice, her “counterclaims” in tort. See Iowa Code § 598.3 (2003). Her “counterclaims” for reimbursement for one child’s college expenses and for medical expense reimbursement were not ruled on by the trial court. Therefore we remand for further proceedings on these issues.
We remand for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. Otherwise, we affirm. Lasonia shall pay the costs of this appeal.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.