Supreme Court Decision on Court Costs

Solland v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa, 786 NW2d 248 (Iowa 2010) provided the court with an opportunity to decide an issue of costs.  The court of appeals had assessed costs equally to the claimant and the Fund, despite the fact that claimant had prevailed in all respects before the court of appeals.  Solland began as a case in which claimant pursued his case against the Fund for two bilateral injuries. At the court of appeals level, the court found in favor of claimant, citing Gregory v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa, 777 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2010) and Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Kratzer, 778 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa 2010).  On the costs  issue, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court approving the assessment of costs by the commissioner and taxed costs of appeals to both parties equally.

The Supreme Court found that Solland was the successful party on appeal, "prevailing on all substantive issues." The court found it clearly erroneous, given the success of claimant, to divide costs equally between the parties.  All costs on appeal and judicial review were assessed against the Fund.

In some ways, it was unusual that the court reached out to decide an issue of costs.  The Solland decision makes clear that costs should be assessed against the party who loses on appeal, which only makes sense.  The case also makes it clear that at least at the appellate level, costs may be taxed against the Fund.  The logic of the Solland decision would seem to allow for taxation of costs against the Fund at the agency level as well.