from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L.
appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition in
a landlord-tenant dispute.
Anthony Vogt, Waterloo, pro se appellant.
D. Miller and Kevin Ahrenholz of Beecher, Field, Walker,
Morris, Hoffman & Johnson, PC, Waterloo, for appellees.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
Vogt appeals the district court's dismissal of his
petition in a landlord-tenant dispute. Vogt did not name as a
defendant the corporate owner of the apartment building and
did not file a motion to amend the petition. We affirm the
district court's decision granting the motion to dismiss.
January 2, 2018, Vogt, a tenant, filed a petition naming John
Ogden, Denice Bennett, and University Studios as
defendants, claiming they had violated provisions of the Iowa
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Iowa Code
chapter 562A (2018). Some of the documents filed by Vogt in
the case named Lane 7, LLC, as a defendant, although Lane 7
was not named as a defendant in the petition and Vogt did not
file a motion to amend the petition to add Lane 7 as a party
to the case.
Bennett, and University Studios East filed a pre-answer motion to
dismiss, stating the petition failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and they had not been served
with the petition or original notice. A document was filed
showing a sheriff's deputy served Lane 7 by serving a
copy of the original notice and petition to Ogden on April 6.
district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding,
"[T]he property sued upon is not owned by Mr. Ogden,
that is held in a corporate name, which has not been listed
as a defendant." Vogt now appeals the dismissal of the
petition. We review the district court's ruling
on a motion to dismiss for correction of errors at law.
Ackerman v. State, 913 N.W.2d 610, 614 (Iowa 2018).
claims the district court should have permitted him to amend
the petition to name the correct defendant, rather than
dismiss the case. On appeal, Vogt claims the property in
question is owned by Lane 7, which he states is owned by
Ogden and managed by Bennett.
is no transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, and
it is not clear from the present record who is the owner of
Vogt's apartment building. The petition states Ogden is
the owner. In the ruling on the motion to dismiss, the
district court found the apartment building was owned by a
corporation, not Ogden, but the corporate owner was not named
in the court's order. In order to add Lane 7 or a
different entity as a defendant, Vogt would need to file a
motion to amend the petition, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil
did not file a motion to amend the petition prior to the
district court's ruling and the court never ruled on this
matter. We conclude Vogt has failed to preserve error on this
issue. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537
(Iowa 2002) ("It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate
review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided
by the district court before we will decide them on
appeal."). Therefore, we do not address the issue.
See Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pease, 807
N.W.2d 839, 854 (Iowa 2011) (finding the court would not
address an issue where error had not been preserved).
also states he attempted to serve Lane 7 in three different
ways and this should be considered good cause for failure to
serve notice within ninety days. We have already determined
Lane 7 is not named as a defendant in the petition and Vogt
never filed a motion to amend the petition to add Lane 7 as a
defendant. A person not named as a party in the ...