Skip to content

As Promised: An Amendment to Rule 1.904(2)

Shuttleworth & Ingersoll Notepad

In a February 2016 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court indicated that it had “initiated an effort to explore [the] possible amendment” of Rule 1.904. See Hedlund v. State, 875 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2016). In Hedlund, the Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal as untimely given the “settled precedent that rule 1.904(2) is not available to seek mere reconsideration of a legal ruling and our equally settled precedent that an improper rule 1.904(2) motion does not toll the time for appeal.”

In a November 18, 2016 Order, the Court adopted final amendments to the rule. The new rule expressly contemplates motions to reconsider and provides that such motions will toll the time for appeal–just as motions to enlarge or amend have done previously. The comments to the amendment make it clear that the intent was to remove controversy as to whether a 1.904(2) motion was “proper.”

However, the rule still has some parameters to consider. The new rule prohibits successive rule 1.904(2) motions unless the subsequent motion pertains to a modification to an order. In addition, as noted in the comments, neither the amendment nor the rule address whether an issue raised for the first time in a Rule 1.904 motion preserves error.

The amendment is scheduled to go into effect March 1, 2017.

Cedar Rapids Office

115 3rd St. SE, Suite 500
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Coralville Office

327 2nd St., Suite 300
Coralville, IA 52241


Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (1) in /home/ym719pcbi9bw/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4552

Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (1) in /home/ym719pcbi9bw/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4552

Notice: ob_end_flush(): failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (1) in /home/ym719pcbi9bw/public_html/wp-content/plugins/really-simple-ssl/class-mixed-content-fixer.php on line 111