Who We Are

Our Lawyers

Meet the lawyers who will be working on your case. With more than 60 years of collective trial experience, we have much to offer you, including awards, accolades and nominations that cannot be matched.

Our Lawyers

Case Results

Mondelli v. Kendel Homes Corp.

With regard to the Mondellis' appeal, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Drs. Pour and King. This exclusion of evidence was prejudicial error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow joinder of the claims of the Mondelli family.

In The News

Our Lawyers
in the Media

At Domina Law Group we are fortunate to work on fascinating and compelling legal problems and lawsuits that change laws and affect our country – Media across the US and across the borders agree. Read stories and watch videos of our cases and with our lawyers.

Attorney Referrals

Our firm has a reputation as leaders in complex litigation.

Get the best result possible by partnering with us.

Our legal skills have been utilized in some of the most specialized and complicated cases. These cases were often referred to us by other professionals in the field. We honor and respect lawyers and other professionals who choose to refer complex cases to our law firm.

We have paid millions in fees to our co-counsel. Call us.

Learn More

Contact Us

Contact Us Today

Send Your Message

Trial is legal surgery, the narrowest specialty, and it requires unique skills. Our clients want our service and hope they never need it again- like surgery.

Farm Dispute in Iowa? Mediation is Mandatory

Iowa Code § 654B.3 provides mediation is mandatory for "care and feeding contracts." Specifically, "1(a) A person who is a farm resident, or other party, desiring to initiate a civil proceeding to resolve a dispute, shall file a request for mediation with the farm mediation service.

The person shall not begin the proceeding until the person receives a mediation release or until the court determines after notice and hearing that one of the following applies: (1) The time delay required for the mediation would cause the person to suffer irreparable harm. (2) The dispute involves a claim which has been brought as a class action." Id. § 654B.3

Filing a request for mediation with the farm mediation service is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a civil action. However, mediation may be waived after the initial consultation with the farm mediation service, but all parties must agree to waive mediation. Id. § 654B.3 1(b), 2.

A ''care and feeding contract,'' means an "agreement, either oral or written, between a farm resident and the owner of livestock, under which the farm resident agrees to act as a feeder by promising to care for and feed the livestock on the farm resident''s premises." Id. § 654B.1.

Under Chapter 654.B, Farm Mediation-Care and Feeding Contracts, a "dispute" is a "controversy between a person who is a farm resident and another person which … relates to … [t]he performance of either person under a care and feeding contract, if both persons are parties to the contract." Id. § 654B.1(2)( a ). A "farm resident" is a "person holding an interest in farmland, in fee, under a real estate contract, or under a lease, if the person manages farming operations on the land." Id. § 654B.1(5). An "other party" is a "person having a dispute with a farm resident." Id. § 654B.1(8). A "care and feeding contract" is "an agreement, either oral or written, between a farm resident and the owner of livestock, under which the farm resident agrees to act as a feeder by promising to care for and feed the livestock on the farm resident''s premises." Id. § 654B.1(1).

Most recently, on December 15, 2006, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of mediation in farm disputes under Chapter 654.B. In Klinge v. Bentien, ___ NW2d ____, 2006 WL 3691183 (Iowa Dec. 15, 2006), an unpublished opinion, two pig farmers, attempting to resolve their contract dispute, filed claims in small claims court; the decision was then appealed to the district court, then the State Supreme Court. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded for dismissal holding because the parties failed to file a request for mediation, "the decision of the small claims court is void." Klinge, ___ NW2d ____, 2006 WL 369118, *1

The Court reasoned because neither party requested mediation pursuant to Iowa Code 654B.3, prior to filing the lawsuit, no court was vested with subject matter jurisdiction. The Court explained the difference between ''lack of subject matter jurisdiction'' and ''authority to hear a case'':

The significance of this distinction becomes evident when issues of waiver arise. In contrast to subject matter jurisdiction, ''a court''s lack of authority is not conclusively fatal to the validity of an order.'' Consequently, an order entered without authority is voidable rather than void. ''Thus if a party waives the court''s [lack of] authority to hear a particular case, the judgment becomes final and is not subject to collateral attack.''

Id., 2006 WL 369118, *3 (internal citations omitted).

The Court concluded because Klinge failed to file a request for mediation with the farm mediation services and obtain a mediation release before filing suit, as required by Iowa Code 654B.3, the small claims court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, the small claims court''s decision was void, as was the district court''s on review. Id. at *5.

Categories: Agricultural Law

How Can We Help You?

Tell us about your case.

Send Your Message