Background
Eagle Rise Developments, LLC purchased a former school building in Clinton, Iowa shortly before the August 2020 derecho caused significant roof damage. After residents complained of prolonged disrepair, the City of Clinton cited Eagle Rise with municipal infractions. A magistrate entered an August 2022 order directing Eagle Rise to pay a $6,500 penalty, register the property as vacant, and install a complete new rubber membrane roof. Eagle Rise replaced only the gymnasium roof and failed to pay the penalty, prompting a first contempt proceeding in which its member-managers Troy and Alexander Wilbur purged the contempt by complying with ancillary terms.
Less than a month later, the City filed a second contempt application, again naming only Eagle Rise as defendant. After ten unsuccessful attempts at personal service — with the Wilburs found to be intentionally evading process — the court permitted service by publication in the Clinton Herald. The City, however, never mailed a copy of the notice to Eagle Rise’s last-known address as required by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.311(1). Troy learned of the July 11, 2024 hearing only the day before and appeared without counsel; Alexander was in the courthouse but did not enter the courtroom. The magistrate denied a continuance, took evidence, and found Eagle Rise, Troy, and Alexander each in contempt. Troy and Alexander were sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $100 fine; no penalty was imposed on Eagle Rise itself.
Eagle Rise, Troy, and Alexander petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Iowa Court of Appeals sustained the writ only as to Alexander, finding Troy and Eagle Rise had waived the service defect by appearing and participating. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously sustained the writ of certiorari as to all three petitioners, vacating the contempt orders. As to Troy and Alexander individually, the court held that neither was ever named as an individual offender in the show cause order — which ran only to “Defendant Eagle Rise Developments, LLC, by and through its Member-Managers.” Because Iowa Code § 665.7 requires that notice be served on “the offender” — meaning each specific person sought to be punished — Troy and Alexander were never placed on notice that they personally faced contempt. That defect was not cured by Troy appearing on Eagle Rise’s behalf; a representative’s appearance for an entity does not constitute notice to that individual as a potential personal contemnor. The court emphasized this principle is consistent with authority from multiple jurisdictions holding that corporate officers are entitled to individual notice before being held in contempt for a company’s conduct.
As to Eagle Rise, the court held that even if Troy’s appearance could be treated as a waiver of the defective publication service, Iowa Code § 665.7 independently requires that a contemnor be given “a reasonable time” to respond — a requirement rooted in due process. Eagle Rise received at most one day’s actual notice and was unable to secure counsel. The magistrate’s refusal to grant a continuance deprived Eagle Rise of the meaningful opportunity to defend that the statute and constitution demand. The court also clarified an important structural point: compliance with § 665.7’s service requirement is a prerequisite to the court’s authority to punish for contempt, not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction — a distinction the petitioners had conflated in their challenge.
Key Takeaways
- Before LLC members or corporate officers can be held personally in contempt for a company’s violation of a court order, a show cause order must be individually directed to those persons — naming the entity alone is insufficient, even where the individuals are identified as its managers.
- Iowa Code § 665.7’s personal service requirement and “reasonable time” guarantee are prerequisites to a court’s authority to punish for contempt, but they do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction; parties who conflate the two will fail on the jurisdictional challenge while potentially succeeding on the authority challenge.
- Service by publication is permissible for a contempt proceeding where a party is intentionally evading personal service, but all procedural requirements — including mailing a copy of the notice to the last-known address under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.311(1) — must still be met.
- Appearing at a contempt hearing may waive service defects, but it does not waive the statutory right to a “reasonable time” to prepare a defense; a single day’s actual notice that left the party unable to retain counsel does not satisfy that requirement.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important procedural guardrails for contempt enforcement actions involving business entities. Courts and opposing counsel alike must take care not only to serve the entity properly but also to individually name and serve each person they intend to hold personally liable — including LLC members and corporate officers who may be known participants in the underlying litigation. A finding of contempt that skips this step will not survive review, regardless of how obvious the individuals’ roles may be.
The court’s clarification of the jurisdiction-versus-authority distinction also has broader significance. By aligning contempt procedure with its recent jurisprudence on subject matter jurisdiction, the court signals that failure to comply with statutory notice requirements is an authority defect reviewable on certiorari — but does not void the underlying proceedings or strip the court of power to act prospectively with proper notice. Litigants seeking to compel compliance with court orders through contempt should treat § 665.7’s requirements as mandatory prerequisites, not technical formalities that can be cured by a party’s voluntary appearance.