Opinion
No. 4-521 / 03-2117.
August 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for WebsterCounty, Kurt L. Wilke, Judge.
Joseph and Nell Horan appeal from a probate order of the district court refusing to approve the sale of certain farmland to them. AFFIRMED.
Monty L. Fisher, Fort Dodge, for appellants.
Thomas Lose, Fort Dodge, John Perkins of Perkins Law Office, Fort Dodge, and Charles Walker of Walker Law Office, P.C., Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Joseph and Nell Horan appeal from an order of the probate court refusing to approve the sale of certain farmland to them. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The probate court made the following findings of fact, which we find supported in the record, and therefore adopt as our own:
Wells Fargo Bank, the Executor of the Ballstadt estate, advertised the sale of the real estate on or about October 5, 2003. The advertisement invited any interested persons to submit a written bid by October 27, 2003. The top five bidders would then be invited to attend a private auction at 1:30 p.m. on October 30, 2003, where the bidders would have an opportunity to increase their bids. The advertisement also states that the Executor reserved the right to reject any or all bids. The highest initial bid of the three bids received by the due date was from Joseph M. Horan for $475,000. On October 30, 2003, the Executor received a late bid from Michael Pearson for $488,000. Although he had submitted a late bid, the representative of the Executor advised Pearson that he could attend the private auction.
At the private auction on October 30, one of the bidders objected to Pearson's participation in the auction since his bid had been submitted after the advertised deadline. In addition to the objection to Pearson's attendance, another bidder raised a question about an easement, and the auction was continued so that an opinion could be provided. Prior to the continued auction, the Executor received a letter from the three timely bidders that stated their complaint regarding Pearson's attendance at the auction in spite of his late bid. The Executor became concerned about the costs of attorney fees if a lawsuit was brought or a realtor's commission if the bids were cancelled and the property was listed. The Executor then decided that the highest bid from one of the three timely bidders would be accepted.
The auction was continued on November 4, 2003, with only the three bidders who had submitted their bids before the advertised deadline. Joseph Horan again submitted the highest written bid of $475,000 and the Executor accepted it. The sale advertisement stated that the buyer had the right to enter the farm for fall tillage. Horan exercised that right, and after the sale he began to work on the land
Following these events, the executor filed in the district court sitting in probate an "Application for Order Approving Sale of Estate Real Property," which sought approval of the sale to Horan. Following a hearing on the matter, the court filed an order refusing to approve the sale to the highest timely bidders. It reasoned (1) the sale advertisement disclosed the bank's discretion to reject any or all bids, (2) the bank was not precluded from accepting the late bid, and (3) if the bank failed to consider and accept the untimely higher bid, the sale would not be "conducted in a manner that most strongly benefits the estate." Joseph Horan and his wife Nell appeal from this order, contending the court lacked either the subject matter jurisdiction or the "authority" to rule as it did on the application for approval of the sale of the real estate to them.
II. Scope of Review.
This court conducts a denovo review of equitable proceedings arising in probate. Iowa Code § 633.33 (2003); Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction vs. Authority.
The Horans did not challenge either the district court's subject matter jurisdiction or its authority in the proceedings below. However, this is not fatal at least as to the subject matter contention. Subject matter jurisdiction, of course, may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. Christie v. Rolscreen Co., 448 N.W.2d 447, 450 (Iowa 1989).
Subject matter jurisdiction is broadly defined as the power of a court to hear and determinecases of the general class to which a particular proceeding belongs. In re Estate of Dull, 303 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 1981). Subjectmatterjurisdiction cannot be waived or vested by consent. Id. In Iowa, probate courts have special jurisdiction exercised by a separate division of a court of general jurisdiction. In re Guardianship of Matejski, 419 N.W.2d 576, 578 (Iowa 1988). When sitting in probate, the district court is a court of general jurisdiction. Id. The probate court "has plenary jurisdiction to determine matters essential to probate business before it." Id.
We conclude the court below had subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy. Certainly, a district court sitting in probate has jurisdiction to approve sales of real estate, so one must conclude the court had the power to hear and determine a case of this general class. See Iowa Code § 633.399 (providing for court approval for any sale of real property by an executor).
Thus, we turn to the Horans' alternative claim the court lacked the authority to hear this case. However, again, this claim was not raised before the district court. Unlike a subject matter jurisdiction challenge, a challenge to the authority of a court to hear a particular case, see Keokuk County v. H.B., 593 N.W.2d 118, 122 (Iowa 1999) (comparing subject matter jurisdiction and authority), must be raised in the district court. See Rants v. Vilsack, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2004) (citing In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (noting that issues "must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.")). Thus, the Horans have failed to preserve error on their challenge to the court's authority, and we do not address it.
Having concluded that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, we therefore affirm its order.