author: TERNUS, Justice. STREIT, Justice CARTER, Justice

text:
    ENVIROGAS, L.P., Appellee, v. CEDAR RAPIDS/LINN COUNTY SOLID WASTE AGENCY d/b/a Bluestem Solid Waste Agency, Appellant.
    No. 99-1672.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    April 3, 2002.

      David F. McGuire and James H. Flitz, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

      Donald G. Thompson and Ellen Ramsey-Kacena of Bradley & Riley, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
   TERNUS, Justice.

The primary issue we decide in this case is whether appellant, Bluestem Solid Waste Agency, an entity created under Iowa Code chapter 28E (1995), must comply with the competitive bidding requirements of Iowa Code chapter 384. The trial court ruled that Bluestem was subject to the public bidding law and that its failure to comply with that law rendered an agreement between Bluestem and appel-lee, EnviroGas, L.P., unenforceable. Although the court denied any contractual recovery to EnviroGas, the court awarded damages to EnviroGas under a theory of fraud based on representations made by the executive director of Bluestem.

Upon our review, we conclude the trial court erred in holding that the competitive bidding law applied to the agreement between Bluestem and EnviroGas. Accordingly, we hold that EnviroGas was entitled to recover under the contract and affirm the award of damages on that basis. See In re Estate of Voss, 553 N.W.2d 878, 879 n. 1 (Iowa 1996) (holding appellate court may affirm “on any basis appearing in the record and urged by the prevailing party”). This ruling makes it unnecessary to consider EnviroGas’s fraud claim.

Bluestem also claims error in the assessment of costs. EnviroGas concedes that certain deposition expenses were improperly taxed as costs. We reverse that part of the trial court’s judgment awarding these expenses and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with our decision.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In 1994 Linn County and the City of Cedar Rapids entered into a 28E agreement, creating Bluestem Solid Waste Agency to operate two landfills in Linn County. See Iowa Code ch. 28E (allowing local governments to exercise their powers jointly through a separate legal entity formed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter). Bluestem is administered by a board of directors; daily operations are the responsibility of Bluestem’s executive director, David Hogan.

EnviroGas, L.P. is a limited partnership that owns the right to operate a system in place at one of the landfills that collects methane gas generated by the waste at the landfill. It sells the gas to utilities that use the gas to produce power.

In the early 1990s Bluestem was under a state mandate to install a system at the landfills to collect leachate, a liquid byproduct of the waste materials deposited at the site. By coincidence, EnviroGas began planning in mid-1995 to expand its gas collection system. Hogan suggested that EnviroGas and Bluestem cooperate to build a combined gas and leachate collection system, resulting in significant cost savings to both parties.

Bluestem’s finance committee approved the concept of a combined system and recommended a $400,000 contribution to construction of the project. It was asserted at trial that this recommendation included a limitation on the use of the $400,000 to materials, engineering services and equipment, based on a concern that payment of labor costs would require public bidding of the job. In addition, the finance committee, or at least its chairman, indicated that Bluestem would contribute no more than $400,000. Hogan sent a letter to EnviroGas, indicating Bluestem’s willingness to participate in the project on a proportionate basis. This letter did not reveal any limitations on the use of funds paid by Bluestem, nor did. it state that Bluestem would not pay more than its initial $400,000 contribution.

EnviroGas built the combined system, completing it in July 1996. It then sought to collect the balance owed by Bluestem. Bluestem refused to pay its proportionate share and this lawsuit followed.

EnviroGas sought to recover under several theories, including breach of contract, restitution, fraud, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. Bluestem’s primary defense was that the project should have been publicly bid. Because it was not, argued Bluestem, it was prohibited by law from expending funds on the project, thereby rendering the contract void and precluding any recovery by EnviroGas. In a pre-trial motion to adjudicate law points and again at trial, the district court held that the competitive bidding law applied. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that En-viroGas could not recover under its contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit claims. (The court did not address the restitution claim.) Nonetheless, the trial court awarded damages to EnviroGas based on a theory of fraudulent misrepresentation. Bluestem filed this appeal.

II. Issues Raised on Appeal

Bluestem challenges the court’s ruling on EnviroGas’s fraud claim, asserting that to allow a tort recovery for public improvements that were not subjected to competitive bidding would defeat the purpose of the competitive bidding statute. Alternatively, Bluestem argues that the necessary elements of fraudulent misrepresentation were not supported by substantial evidence. Bluestem also attacks the trial court’s calculation of damages and its taxation as costs of depositions that were not introduced into evidence.

EnviroGas contends that the judgment should be affirmed because it was entitled to recover under its contract claim or one of the equitable theories alleged in its petition. It also asserts that judgment was correctly rendered on its claim of fraud and that the court’s calculation of damages is supported by substantial evidence. As for Bluestem’s challenge to the taxation of costs, EnviroGas concedes that the costs of two depositions, those of William J. Kinney and Jeffrey Schott, should not have been included in the judgment. On the other hand, EnviroGas claims that the cost of the deposition of the mayor of Cedar Rapids, Lee Clancy, was properly recoverable.

In response to EnviroGas’s claim that the judgment should be affirmed on the basis of its contract claim, Bluestem argues that EnviroGas was required to file a cross-appeal to preserve that issue for review. Alternatively, Bluestem asserts (1) the contract was void because the parties did not comply with the competitive bidding law, and (2) the elements of a contract were not established.

As noted earlier, we find EnviroGas’s contract claim to be dispositive of Blues-tem’s challenge to the trial court’s finding of liability on the part of Bluestem, so we will discuss only the issues pertinent to that theory of liability. In addition, we will address Bluestem’s claimed error in the award of damages and the assessment of costs made by the trial court.

III. Standard of Review on Contract Claim.

Where a breach-of-contract claim is tried as a law action, our review is for correction of errors of law. See Land O’Lakes, Inc. v. Hanig, 610 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 2000). To the extent the validity of the contract turns on an interpretation of chapter 384, we also review for correction of legal error. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Iowa 2000).

The trial court’s “legal conclusions and application of legal principles are not binding on the appellate court.” See Land O’Lakes, 610 N.W.2d at 522. In contrast, any findings of fact made by the trial court are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. See Van Oort Constr. Co. v. Nuckoll’s Concrete Serv., Inc., 599 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Iowa 1999). “ ‘Evidence is substantial for purposes of sustaining a finding of fact when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion.’ ” Land O’Lakes, 610 N.W.2d at 522 (quoting Falc-zynski v. Amoco Oil Co., 533 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa 1995)). The evidence is viewed “in a light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment.” Van Oort Constr., 599 N.W.2d at 689.

IV. Correctness of Ruling on Contract Claim.

As indicated in our recitation of the facts, the trial court denied recovery under a theory of breach of contract on the basis that the public bidding law should have been followed and was not. See Kunkle Water & Elec., Inc. v. City of Prescott, 347 N.W.2d 648, 656 (Iowa 1984) (noting that contracts let without required public bidding are “void, not merely voidable”). The first step in our analysis, therefore, is to decide whether the court’s determination that the competitive bidding statute applied is correct. Before we consider this issue, however, we address Bluestem’s concern that error was not preserved.

A. Error preservation. The district court’s initial consideration of the competitive bidding law was in its ruling on Bluestem’s motion to adjudicate law points. In that ruling, the court held that the public bidding requirements of division VI of Iowa Code chapter 384 applied if the cost thresholds established by statute were met. See Iowa Code §§ 331.341(1) (requiring county to submit project for public bidding where cost to county exceeds amount specified in section 309.40 ($50,-000)), 384.96 (requiring city to submit project for public bidding where cost to city exceeds $25,000). The court observed whether these cost thresholds were satisfied was a factual issue that would be determined at trial. In its ruling after trial, the court again addressed the public bidding requirements. Referring to its earlier ruling, the court summarily stated that the competitive bidding law applied to the project undertaken by Bluestem and EnviroGas. It held, therefore, that Envi-roGas was precluded from recovering under its contract with Bluestem. Nonetheless, EnviroGas was ultimately successful at trial, obtaining a judgment of damages on its fraud claim.

Ordinarily, “a successful party need not cross-appeal to preserve error on a ground urged but ignored or rejected” by the trial court. Johnston Equip. Corp. v. Indus. Indem., 489 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Iowa 1992). Bluestem contends, however, that this principle should not be applied where the trial court ruled on the contested issue in response to a motion to adjudicate law points. See generally Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.454 (providing a mechanism for the pretrial adjudication of legal issues) (formerly Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 116). This contention rests on the provision in rule 1.454 that states an adjudication of a point of law “shall not be questioned on the trial of any part of the case of which it does not dispose.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.454.

We reject Bluestem’s argument that the nature of an adjudication of law points dictates that such a ruling be considered sacrosanct even on appeal unless the party on the losing side of such a ruling files a notice of appeal. In our view, there is no logical nexus between the principle that a rule 1.454 ruling cannot be questioned at

trial and the ability of the ultimately-successful party to challenge such a ruling on appeal like any other adverse district court ruling. We further note that a motion-to-adjudieate-law-points ruling is not as unalterable as Bluestem suggests. Despite the language of rule 1.454, we have condoned a district court’s correction of its own prior ruling on a motion to adjudicate law points. See Woods v. Schmitt, 439 N.W.2d 855, 865-66 (Iowa 1989). For all these reasons, we hold that EnviroGas’s failure to file a cross-appeal does not preclude this court from reviewing the trial court’s decision on the applicability of the competitive bidding law.

B. Applicability of the competitive bidding statute. EnviroGas raises a two-fold challenge to the trial court’s ruling that the public bidding law applied here: (1) division VI of chapter 384 does not apply to 28E entities; and (2) even if the statute governs projects by 28E entities, the project at issue here did not meet the threshold expenditure requirements so as to trigger the necessity of public bidding. Although the court did not specifically discuss the latter issue, we presume this factual matter was resolved so as to support the court’s ultimate ruling. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Fidata Trust Co., 452 N.W.2d 411, 413 (Iowa 1990) (stating that the reviewing court will presume the trial court decided the facts necessary to support its decision); Brichacek v. Hiskey, 401 N.W.2d 44, 46 (Iowa 1987) (“When no motion to enlarge or amend was made, we assume as fact an unstated finding that is necessary to support the judgment.”).

1. Applicability of chapter 38⅛ to 28E entities. Although the focus of this appeal is on the application of division VI of chapter 384 to 28E entities, it is helpful to our consideration of the scope of division VI to first review a companion part of the statute — division IV. See generally State v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc., 587 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Iowa 1998) (stating that the court construes “statutes that relate to the same or a closely allied subject together so as to produce a harmonious and consistent body of legislation”); In re B.B., 516 N.W.2d 874, 878 (Iowa 1994) (“We do not consider one portion of a statute in isolation, but rather construe it in context with other portions of the statute.”). In division IV of chapter 384, the legislature addresses the financing of a “public improvement” through special assessments on private property. See Iowa Code §§ 384.37-.79 (designated as division IV of chapter 384). This division requires public bidding under various circumstances, including a city undertaking a public improvement pursuant to an agreement under chapter 28E. See id. § 384.76. The term “public improvement” is defined for purposes of division IV to include certain designated projects such as sewers, streets and sidewalks. See id. § 384.37(19).

It is apparent from a review of these statutory provisions that division IV does not apply here. First, a collection system such as that constructed by EnviroGas is not within the list of improvements set forth in division IV’s definition of “public improvement.” In addition, the financing of the collection system at issue here did not involve special assessments on private property. Therefore, as all parties concede, the competitive bidding requirements of division IV of chapter 384 do not apply to Bluestem, the 28E entity involved in the present dispute.

. We turn now to a consideration of the other potentially applicable competitive bidding statutes: division VI of chapter 384, governing contract letting procedures for “public improvements” by a city, and chapter 331, governing county contracts for “public improvements.” Our discussion will focus on division VI of chapter 384 since chapter 331 has no independent requirements for public bidding but merely makes the contract letting procedures imposed on cities applicable to counties. See id. § 331.341(1).

At the outset, it is important to note that the legislature did not include a provision in division VI similar to section 384.76 that requires a city or county undertaking a public improvement through a 28E entity to comply with the competitive bidding laws. In the absence of such a provision, we cannot agree with Bluestem’s argument that the legislature intended to subject 28E entities to the competitive bidding requirements of division VI just as though a city or county had undertaken the public improvement. There is simply no basis for this court to expand the scope of division VI to encompass 28E entities, particularly where it is apparent that the legislature knew how to include 28E entities, as it did in section 384.76, had it wanted to do so. See Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc., 587 N.W.2d at 602-03 (refusing to interpret criminal statute to impose vicarious liability where there was no expression of legislative intent to do so, particularly where legislature had expressly imposed vicarious liability for violation of same statute in civil context); see also Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Bd. v. Shell Oil Co., 606 N.W.2d 376, 379 (Iowa 2000) (“We determine [legislative] intent from what the legislature said, not from what it might or should have said.”); Moulton v. Iowa Employment Sec. Comm’n, 239 Iowa 1161, 1172, 34 N.W.2d 211, 216 (1948) (“‘The court is not at liberty to read into the statute provisions which the legislature did not see fit to incorporate, nor may it enlarge the scope of its provisions by an unwarranted interpretation of the language used.’ ” (Citation omitted.)). We hold, therefore, that division VI of chapter 384 and chapter 331 do not apply directly to 28E entities.

Contrary to Bluestem’s position, this conclusion does not thwart the underlying purpose of competitive bidding statutes, which is to benefit the public as taxpayers. See Elview Constr. Co. v. N. Scott Cmty. Sch. Dist., 373 N.W.2d 138, 141 (Iowa 1985) (holding that competitive bidding laws were enacted to protect the public and were “for the benefit of the taxpayers”). The legislature ensured that division VI of chapter 384 and chapter 331 would achieve this goal by the way it defined the term “public improvement” for purposes of these statutes. Unlike the limited definition of “public improvement” adopted by the legislature in division IV, see Iowa Code § 384.37(19), which encompasses only certain types of projects, the definition of “public improvement” for purposes of city and county contracts is much broader, see id. § 384.95. The latter definition encompasses “any building or construction work ... to be paid for in whole or in part by the use of funds of the city [or county].” Id. (emphasis added); accord id. § 331.341(1) (stating that “public improvement” as used in statute governing county contracts “means the same as defined in section 384.95” substituting the word “county” for the word “city”). Thus, under this definition, the determinative factor is the use of city or county funds, not the identity of the contracting party. In this way, the legislature has provided for the protection of taxpayers. It is not this court’s role to decide whether it would be better policy to simply apply competitive bidding statutes to 28E entities in general. See State v. Johnson, 630 N.W.2d 583, 586 (Iowa 2001) (“[T]he court will not ‘substitute its judgment for that of the legislature on matters of policy.’ ” (Citation omitted.)).

We also reject Bluestem’s argument that our decision is at odds with Iowa Code section 28E.7, which provides that a city or county is not relieved “of any obligation or responsibility imposed upon it by law” by entering into a 28E agreement. Iowa Code § 28E.7. As we have pointed out, a city or county must comply with the public bidding laws only when the project at issue requires expenditures of city or county funds meeting or exceeding the statutory thresholds. This obligation remains intact under our interpretation of chapter 884: if the combined collection system requires the statutory level of monetary payments from the city or county, competitive bidding is required, even though the contracting party is a 28E entity rather than the city or county. We simply refuse to rewrite chapter 384 so as to trigger the competitive bidding requirements when the project is financed, not by city or county funds, but by the funds of a separate legal entity not encompassed within the terms of division VI of chapter 384.

2. Use of county or city funds. Having concluded that the statutory language does not permit wholesale application of the public bidding laws contained in division VI to 28E entities, the focus must be on whether the project at issue here is “to be paid for in whole or in part by the use of funds of the city [or county].” See id. §§ 331.341(1), 384.95. Moreover, Bluestem was required to prove that any such expenditure of city or county funds reached the statutorily required threshold of $25,000 for the city and $50,000 for the county. See Watkins v. Watkins, 239 Iowa 325, 330, 31 N.W.2d 354, 356 (1948) (holding that burden to prove agreement was void and unenforceable because it violated a federal statute was on the defendant). See generally Iowa Code §§ 331.341(1), 384.96 (providing that public bidding is not required until certain minimum levels of expenditures are made).

As we noted earlier, although the trial court did not expressly make a factual finding as to these matters, we will presume the court found the facts necessary to support its decision that the project was subject to competitive bidding requirements. The question, then, is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the collection system was to be paid in whole or in part by city and/or county funds meeting or exceeding the statutory thresholds.

It is undisputed in the record that neither the city nor the county had an obligation to directly pay for this project. Rather, the agreement required Bluestem, a separate legal entity, to contribute to the cost of the system. The only evidence that Bluestem used county or city funds for this obligation focused on the original funding for Bluestem in early 1994. At that time, the city contributed $450,000 and the county contributed $50,000 to finance the start-up of the newly formed 28E entity and the two landfills it operated. But there is no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to support a finding that these start-up funds were available to pay for the collection system installed by EnviroGas two years later.

According to Bluestem’s own director, David Hogan, the initial contributions made by the city and county were used as “seed money” to get the enterprise started and to fund the operation of the landfills until Bluestem collected sufficient fees from users to finance its ongoing operations. In addition, an unspecified portion of these start-up funds were deposited into a special “liability account” that was primarily intended to cover the costs incurred in closing the landfills at some point in the future. The liability or closure account also contained user fees, which, according to Hogan, were “routinely” deposited into this account. Hogan testified that an unidentified portion of the expenses Blues-tem incurred in the project at issue here was paid from this special account.

Importantly, Hogan testified that he could not track the seed money contributed by the city and county, but he believed that “probably it’s been used.” Hogan testified that after Bluestem “used that money up,” it operated with money or fees collected from persons using the landfills. Hogan’s testimony that the seed money had already been spent was supported by the fact that Bluestem had an annual budget in 1994 of $6 million dollars, which grew to almost $8 million by 1999. Common sense supports the inference that by 1996, when the collection system was built, the $500,000 seed money would have been gone.

In summary, we think it would be pure speculation to conclude from the evidence in this case that any city or county funds were used or were to be used to pay for the collection system built by EnviroGas, let alone that such funds reached the cost thresholds of $25,000 and $50,000 respectively. We hold, therefore, that there is not substantial evidence to support a finding that this project falls within the legislature’s definition of “public improvement” or that any city or county expenditures met or exceeded the statutory thresholds. Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the competitive bidding statutes applied. It follows that the court also erred in ruling that the contract between Bluestem and EnviroGas was unenforceable.

C. Elements of contract claim. Bluestem contends that even if the parties’ agreement for construction of a combined collection system is not unenforceable, the elements of a contract were not established at trial. The only specific flaw argued by Bluestem, however, relates to whether the parties agreed on how the costs of the combined system were to be divided. Therefore, we confine our discussion to this issue. See Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 689 (Iowa 1994) (stating random mention of issue, without elaboration or supporting authority, is insufficient to raise issue for appellate court’s consideration); accord State v. Mann, 602 N.W.2d 785, 788 n. 1 (Iowa 1999).

Although the trial court did not expressly address whether the elements of a contract claim were proved, it necessarily determined the financial terms of the contract because it applied a benefit-of-the-bargain measure of damages in allowing a recovery under the fraud theory. In assessing the damages resulting from Blues-tem’s fraud, the trial court awarded the amount of money that EnviroGas had not been reimbursed under its agreement with Bluestem. Bluestem contends there was not substantial evidence to support the district court’s calculation of damages.

At trial there was conflicting testimony on how the parties had agreed to share the cost of the combined system built by EnviroGas. In addition, both parties introduced expert testimony on the incremental cost of the leachate system and Bluestem’s share of the total cost of the combined system. The trial court specifically found the testimony of Enviro-Gas’s expert to be more convincing. Because we review only for the correction of errors at law, we will not reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. See In re Estate of Todd, 585 N.W.2d 273, 278 (Iowa 1998) (holding in action tried at law, that court was “in no position to weigh the evidence”); Tim O’Neill Chevrolet, Inc. v. Forristall, 551 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa 1996) (“Our task is not to weigh the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.”)' We think the testimony offered by EnviroGas’s witnesses and expert constitutes substantial evidence that supports the trial court’s determination of how the cost of the system was to be shared and what portion of that cost Bluestem owed. Therefore, we find no error on this issue.

Our decision that the trial court’s award of damages is sustainable under Enviro-Gas’s contract theory makes it unnecessary for us to address EnviroGas’s fraud claim. We turn now to the claimed error in the taxation of costs.

V. Costs.

Bluestem challenges the district court’s assessment of the expense of three depositions as costs. EnviroGas concedes that two depositions should not have been included in the award of costs, but claims that the third deposition, that of Mayor Lee Clancy, was properly taxed as a cost.

Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.716 controls. This rule provides:

Costs of taking and proceeding to procure a deposition shall be paid by the party taking it who cannot use it in evidence until such costs are paid. The judgment shall award against the losing 'party only such portion of these costs as were necessarily incurred for testimony offered and admitted upon the trial.

Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.716 (formerly Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 157) (emphasis added). Costs for depositions are not “necessarily incurred” within the meaning of this rule unless they are “introduced into evidence in whole or in part at trial.” Woody v. Machin, 380 N.W.2d 727, 730 (Iowa 1986). Once the threshold requirement that the deposition be introduced into evidence is met, the trial court has discretion to tax the deposition expense as a cost. Id. As we noted in Woody, a trial court may choose not to allow the expense or may choose to award only a portion of the cost. Id. For example, the court “might find the offer of deposition testimony was not made for a useful purpose ... [o]r ... that only a part of the costs met the necessity standard.” Id. In such instances, the trial court could conclude that some or all of the costs were not “necessarily incurred.”

As this discussion reveals, the trial court’s decision-making process is twofold. The trial court must initially make a factual finding that the prerequisite for allowance of the deposition expense is met, i.e., that the deposition was “introduced into evidence in whole or in part at trial.” Id. The court then must exercise its discretion in deciding whether all or some portion of the cost was “necessarily incurred.” See id. (noting that the court’s determination under rule 157(a) (now rule 1.716) “involves an exercise of discretion”).

This two-stage analytical framework triggers a two-tiered standard of review. See Sec. State Bank v. Ziegeldorf 554 N.W.2d 884, 893 (Iowa 1996) (adopting two standards of review where court was required to make a factual finding as to statutory prerequisite for allowance of attorney fees and then exercise discretion as to amount of fees to allow). As to the first step in the trial court’s analysis, we review the record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the threshold requirement of admission at trial was met. See Sec. State Bank, 554 N.W.2d at 893 (reviewing factual finding that statutory prerequisite for allowance of attorney fees was met for substantial evidence). We review the court’s subsequent determination of necessity for an abuse of discretion. See Woody, 380 N.W.2d at 730 (stating that court will “reverse a finding on the necessity issue only for abuse of discretion”). We now address the specific challenge made by Bluestem to the court’s taxation of the Clancy deposition expense.

Bluestem claims that the Clancy deposition was not “admitted nor introduced as evidence at the trial.” This alleged error requires our court to review the record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s implicit finding that this factual prerequisite was met. Our review of the trial transcript reveals that, during the presentation of evidence, the attorney for EnviroGas began to read into the record portions of Clancy’s deposition. The court questioned whether there was “any reason why we couldn’t provide [the deposition] to the record” rather than being read into evidence. At that point, the attorney ceased his reading of the deposition. Although the transcript shows no formal offer of the deposition into evidence, the court reporter’s list of exhibits includes the Clancy deposition.

We think the record contains substantial evidence to support a finding that the threshold requirement for taxing the deposition expense as a cost was met. Consequently, the trial court was permitted, in its discretion, to include some or all of this-expense in the judgment. Because Blues-tem has not challenged the trial court’s exercise of discretion, we find no basis to reverse the taxation of the cost of the Clancy deposition.

VI. Summary and Disposition.

We hold that the trial court erred in ruling that Bluestem was required to comply with the public bidding statute before it could contribute its funds to the construction of a combined collection system. Consequently, the court also erred in holding that the agreement between the parties requiring Bluestem to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the system was unenforceable. We hold, therefore, the trial court should have awarded damages to EnviroGas under its contract theory. We need not remand for a determination of damages, however, because the trial court’s measure of damages under the fraud theory was identical to the damages recoverable under EnviroGas’s contract claim. Finding substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination of the amount owed by Bluestem under the contract, we affirm the court’s judgment of liability and damages.

As for that part of the judgment taxing costs, we reverse the assessment of costs for the Kinney and Schott depositions. We affirm the trial court’s taxation of the expense of the Clancy deposition. We remand for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All justices concur except STREIT, J., who concurs specially, LARSON, J., who joins this special concurrence, and CARTER, J., who dissents.

STREIT, Justice

(concurring specially).

While I concur with the majority’s conclusion that EnviroGas is entitled to recover damages from Bluestem, I concur specially because I am convinced the competitive bidding requirements of Division VI applied to this -project. Specifically, I believe, at a minimum, $101,000 of public funds were used to drill the wells necessary for the construction of the methane/leachate collection system. Because there was substantial evidence to conclude public funds and equipment were used in the construction of this joint project, I would affirm the trial court’s determination of this issue.

We cannot permit entities engaged in the construction of public improvements to evade the public bidding requirements simply by forming a 28E corporation. The district court correctly found strong policy reasons exist at the heart of competitive bidding statutes that impose the exact type of obligation on a city or county which cannot be avoided by the “expedient of creating a separate legal entity pursuant to a chapter 28E agreement.” The legislature did not intend the only public improvements subject to competitive bidding, where the project contracted with an entity established pursuant to chapter 28E, are those public improvements defined by Division IV of chapter 384. Iowa Code § 384.37(19).

The majority says it refuses to expand the scope of Division VI by finding 28E entities are subject to the competitive bidding requirement in Division VI. I would say this differently — we refuse to limit the scope of Division VI of chapter 384; that the public bidding laws apply to projects where funding from public sources exceed the statutory mínimums, even if a 28E entity is developing the project. We must apply the statute as written. It would be unreasonable to conclude a city or county may circumvent the more general competitive bidding requirements of Division VI by forming a 28E entity. Therefore where, as here, public funds are used to finance a public improvements project, the competitive bidding requirements in Division VI are triggered if-the city and county contribute minimum funds. The focus then is on whether public funds were used in this project.

I disagree with the majority’s depiction of the money used to construct the joint system. The majority is content to conclude that when public money — here, $500,000 of public money — is transferred to a 28E entity, the money somehow loses its public character. This is the essence of their holding. The mere fact that a 28E entity is using public money to construct a public improvement does not mean the money ceases to be public funds.

The majority finds the $500,000 of public funds somehow vanished or became less public when it was placed into the hands of this 28E entity. In so concluding, the majority opinion hinges much on Hogan’s testimony that the city and county funds were “probably used up.” By vesting such significance in this one phrase, the majority ignores substantial other evidence. The same witness who testified the public funds were “probably used up” also testified how these funds were used.

Hogan’s testimony explained what he meant by saying the public funds were “used up.” The city and county “contributed all plant and capital, in other words all the equipment and the two landfills ...” including the real estate for both landfills. He further explained the city and county funds were used to purchase “all of the heavy equipment that is used on both sites, ... virtually everything in the equipment, parts and inventory.” Two years after the investment of public funds of $500,000, this infrastructure of land and equipment was used to build the methane/leachate system.

Hogan also stated the user fees and the city and county funds all go into the same Bluestem account. As to the operating expenses, Hogan testified the money comes out of “day-to-day operations, funds.” This money includes “a contribution from both the city and the county, and then in addition to that there are funds deposited to our account based on fees that we charge the public.”

Most importantly, Bluestem put part of the $500,000 into a closure account shortly after the city and county made their respective contributions in 1994. The closure account was to be used to close the landfill when it was full. These funds are also to be used to monitor the landfill for thirty years following closure. Hogan stated a portion of these public funds “was used also for the drilling of the wells.” As an initial step in the construction of the system, it was necessary to drill wells at the site of the landfill. When asked about the financing for the well-drilling portion of the methane/leaehate project, Hogan stated “it was paid for with public funds.... ” The entire expense for construction and labor of the well-drilling, all from the closure account, was over $101,000. This contribution of public funds alone is well over the statutory minimums necessary to trigger the competitive bidding requirement in Division VI.

Finally, Hogan was asked if the city and county made any additional contributions, to which he responded:

They each have a liability to the agency that relates to the amount of fill that had already been placed until we took over, but that’s a liability that they will satisfy when we actually close. So there are other contributions, but it’s now existing in the form of a liability on their books.

Though the majority relies on Hogan’s statement that Bluestem “used that money up,” (referring to the public funds) it misconstrues Hogan’s statement to conclude he meant the money was not used in the construction of the joint system. To the contrary, the money was integrally involved and is still there. It is in the land upon which Bluestem constructed the landfill and the methane/leachate collection system. It is in the equipment Bluestem used to construct the landfill and the joint system, and continues to use at the site. It is in the wells at the site. And finally, the money is in the closure account. The money has not gone anywhere.

The majority says its conclusion the “seed” money was used up by 1996 is supported by the fact that Bluestem had' an annual budget in 1996 of $6 million, which grew to almost $8 million by 1999. Given this fact, the majority concludes no public money could have been used in the construction of the joint system. However, the mere size of the operating budget does not change the fact that the county and city are only required to contribute $50,000 and $25,000 respectively to the construction of the project in order for competitive bidding to apply. Furthermore, the fact that some of the public funds were used before 1996 does not mean those funds were not used in furtherance of the construction of the joint system. The evidence shows at least $101,000 of public funds were used in constructing the joint system. Given the totality of the facts, the inescapable conclusion is that sufficient public funds were used in the creation of the methane/leach-ate collection system to trigger the competitive bidding requirement.

On appeal, we must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to uphold the trial court’s conclusions. “Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion.” Hasselman v. Hasselman, 596 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1999). Furthermore, if the findings are ambiguous, they will be construed to uphold, not defeat, the judgment. Byers v. Contemporary Indus. Midwest, Inc., 419 N.W.2d 396, 397 (Iowa 1988). While there may be some evidence to the contrary, the substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s ruling. Our duty is not to choose between evidence supporting the trial court’s ruling and that contrary to it. We are only to decide whether substantial evidence existed upon which the court could conclude public funds were involved. If such substantial evidence exists, we are bound by the trial court’s ruling. For the ' reasons stated above, I would uphold the judgment of the trial court on this issue.

In conclusion, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes good with plum sauce, that’s substantial evidence it’s a duck. We have public money used to buy public property, developed with public equipment, and public funds to provide for the landfill clean-up and monitoring for the years to come. At a minimum, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that over $101,000 of public funds were used to finance the well-drilling portion of the methane/leachate project. Given the extensive entanglements of public funds in this case, it is impossible to find the public character of this project has been in any way compromised or destroyed simply because a portion of expenses were paid for with user fees. There is substantial evidence to support the conclusion public funds were used to construct the joint system. Given this determination, I would affirm the trial court’s determination on this issue.

LARSON, J., joins this special concurrence.

CARTER, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent.

I share Justice Streit’s view that the competitive-bidding laws did apply to Bluestem in contracting for the methane/leachate system. Thus, the majority is wrong in upholding EnviroGas’s contract claim.

I disagree with Justice Streit, however, on whether the trial court’s judgment based on alleged fraud should be upheld. I submit that it should not be. When public entities choose to violate the competitive-bidding laws, they will almost always give assurances to the noncompetitive bidder that the acceptance of that bid is proper. If such assurances are deemed to constitute actionable fraud on the part of the public entity, then the competitive-bidding law will serve no purpose in protecting the taxpayers.

With respect to the claim that Blues-tem’s agent knowingly misrepresented his spending authority, that is beside the point. If, as Justice Streit and I contend, any spending on the project would have been in violation of the public-bidding laws, the extent of the agent’s spending authority may not be made the basis of an action for fraud.

I would hold that EnviroGas has no claim against Bluestem and reverse the judgment for damages against it.

      . Hogan’s testimony at trial implied the equipment purchased by funds from the city and county is presently being used at the Bluestem landfills and was used to construct tire joint methane/leachate collection system.

      . Three years later, at trial, the land and equipment had a value between one and one and a half million dollars.

      . The agreement creating Bluestem describes the nature of Bluestem operations and the character of the funds in the Bluestem account. This agreement provided all funds will be managed by Bluestem. The Bluestem funds are to be treated as public funds for the purposes of regulation, use, and investment. Moreover, Bluestem shall be governed by a Board of Directors to be appointed by both the Cedar Rapids City Council and the Linn County Board of Supervisors. Those appointed to Bluestem’s Board of Directors were to be elected or appointed officials of the City of Cedar Rapids, Linn County, or any associate member. The agreement also provided in the event Bluestem did not have sufficient funds to support operating expenses, the City of Cedar Rapids and Linn County would supply the necessary money.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LARSON, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Beverly BALTZLEY and C.P.A.L.S. Corporation, Appellees, v. Ray SULLINS, Appellant.
    No. 99-1032.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    April 3, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied May 24, 2002.
    Ray Sullins, Clive, pro se.
    Lawrence L. Marcucci and John C. Conger of Marcucci & Conger, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellees.
   LARSON, Justice.

Attorney Ray Sullins, who was the defendant in a legal malpractice suit, has appealed from a district court judgment entered after he failed to appear following service of original notice on him. He contends the court failed to properly apply Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 107(b) and 231(b). We reject his arguments.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

Beverly Baltzley and C.P.A.L.S. Corporation (plaintiffs) filed their petition against Sullins on December 11, 1998. Sullins was personally served with the petition and original notice on December 16. He did not appear, and on January 12, 1999, the plaintiffs served a “notice of intent to file written application for default,” in compliance with Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 231(b). Thirteen days later, on January 25, 1999, the plaintiffs’ request for entry of default was granted, and an evi-dentiary hearing was scheduled to determine damages. Sullins filed an answer later that same day.

On March 4, 1999, Sullins filed a motion to set aside the default. The plaintiffs resisted, and the court scheduled a hearing for May 18, 1999. Sullins failed to appear for the hearing, and his motion to set aside the default was overruled. The court heard evidence on the plaintiffs’ damages at this hearing and, on June 7, entered a $750,000 judgment against Sullins.

Sullins raises six issues, but we find potential merit in only two: (1) whether rule 107(b) extends the ten-day grace period accorded to defaulting parties under rule 231(b); and (2) whether the judge, as opposed to the clerk, had the authority to enter the default.

II. Application of Rules 107(b) and 231(b).

Rule 231 provides in relevant part:

b. Application. Requests for entry of default under rule 231(a) shall be by written application to the clerk of the court in which the matter is pending. No default shall be entered unless the application contains a certification that written notice of intention to file the written application for default was given after the default occurred and at least ten days prior to the filing of the written application for default. A copy of the notice shall be attached to the written application for default. If the certification is filed, the clerk on request of the adverse party, must enter the default of record without any order of court.
c. Notice.
(3) Computation of time. The ten-day period specified in R.C.P. 231(b) shall begin from the date of mailing notice, not the receipt thereof.

The plaintiffs mailed this ten-day notice to Sullins on January 12, 1999, but he did not respond within the ten days. On the thirteenth day after the notice was sent, the plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment, the court entered default against Sullins, and the court scheduled a hearing to assess damages. Sullins, however, argues that the ten-day period had not expired because rule 107(b), called the “mailbox rule,” entitled him to an additional three days to respond to the notice of intention to file for default.

Rule 107(b) is a general rule extending time to respond to mailed notice. The issue is whether it applies under the circumstances of this case. The rule provides:

b. Additional time after service by mail. When by these rules a party has the right or is required to do some act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period. Such additional time shall not be applicable where a court has prescribed the method of service of notice and the number of days to be given or where the deadline runs from entry or filing of a judgment, order or decree.

The effect of rule 107(b) on the ten-day period between mailing of a “notice of intention to file the written application for default” and filing the application under rule 231(b) is not clear in the wording of the rules. Sullins argues he has the right under rule 231(b) to file an answer or motion within ten days of plaintiffs giving notice and that rule 107(b) gave him three additional days, which would extend the time to January 25. He filed his answer on that day, so he was within the allowable time, according to him.

The plaintiffs counter that rule 107(b) is a general statute, while rule 231 is specific and therefore controls. Rule 231 has its own provision regarding mailed notice, which begins the ten-day period with mailing, not receipt of the notice. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 231(c)(3). The plaintiffs argue that ten days from mailing would expire on January 22, and Sullins’ answer on January 25 was not timely to prevent the entry of a default judgment.

The plaintiffs argue that the specific mailing provision in rule 231(c)(3) is a self-contained method of computing time. That rule prescribes a specific starting point, i.e., mailing, for computing the ten-day period. However, virtually all service of papers is effective when mailed. “Service [of pleadings and other papers] shall be made by ... mailing ... a copy to the attorney or to the party ... [and] [sjervice by mail is complete upon mailing.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 106(b) (emphasis added). The problem is whether rule 231(c)(3) provides a conclusive ending point. Does the grace period end ten days after mailing, as the plaintiffs argue, or ten days after mailing plus three days, as Sullins argues? Reading rule 107(b) and rule 231(c)(3) together, we conclude the ten-day period is not extended by rule 107(b) because rule 231(c)(3) does more than establish a starting point for the running of the ten-day period. It establishes a total period for responding to the notice, and that is ten days. This is the only interpretation of rule 231(c)(3) that will give that rule any independent significance because, if all it does is establish a beginning point, it is redundant to rule 106. The gist of rule 231(b) and (c) is to “cut some slack” to a defaulting party, but ten days in addition to the original twenty days is sufficient. Three more days need not be added. Under an analogous federal rule, a defaulting party is entitled to only three days, not ten, and even that extension is conditioned on the party’s having filed an appearance, which Sullins had not done. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2).

The court properly entered the order for default after ten days following mailing of the notice and did not err in refusing to extend it under rule 107(b).

III. Was the Judge Authorized to Enter the Default Judgment?

Under rule 231(a)

[i]f a party ... is in default under R.C.P. 230(a) [for failing to serve and file a motion or answer] ... the clerk shall enter that party’s default in accordance with the procedures set forth below without any order of court. All other defaults shall be entered by the court.

(Emphasis added.) Rule 231(b) provides in relevant part:

If the certification [of mailing the ten-day notice] is filed, the clerk on request of the adverse party, must enter the default of record without any order of court.

(Emphasis added.)

In this case, the clerk did not enter the default; the judge did. Sullins contends the only authorization for a judge to enter a default is under the last sentence of rule 231(a), which states “[a]ll other defaults shall be entered by the court.” Sullins argues that, as this is not one of the “other” defaults, the court acted without authority.

Some insight into the background of rule 231(a) may be found in a committee comment to an earlier version of the rule, explaining why the clerk is authorized to enter defaults:

Only a few counties in this state have a judge of the District Court continuously present so that defaults can be promptly entered at all times. Therefore, it was necessary to provide some other method for entering defaults, in order that all counties might be adequately served. It was felt that the Clerk of Court was the logical and proper person to do this.

Iowa R. Civ. P. Ann. 231 cmt., at 442 (3d ed.1970). The provision for entry of defaults by the clerk was obviously designed to expedite default-judgment entries, not to frustrate them. Construing rule 231 to prohibit judges from exercising concurrent authority to enter default judgments would frustrate the purpose of the rule. According to an attorney general’s opinion,

the act of entering defaults has always been one of the proper functions of the Court or Judge, and while this power has now been partially delegated to the Clerk of the District Court, in so doing, we do not believe that it was the intention of the Legislature to deprive the Court of its inherent power ... to also enter the default....

1946 Op. Iowa Att’y Gen. 170, 171.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) similarly authorizes the clerk to enter a default. One authority has said “[t]he fact that Rule 55(a) gives the clerk authority to enter a default is not a limitation on the power of the court to do so.” 10A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2682, at 19 (1998); see also Downing v. O’Brien, 325 A.2d 526, 528 (Me.1974), overruled on other grounds by Architectural Woodcraft Co. v. Read, 464 A.2d 210, 212 & n. 5 (Me.1988); Rogers v. Lyle Adjustment Co., 70 N.M. 209, 372 P.2d 797, 798-99 (1962). The action of the clerk in entering a judgment under terms dictated by statute is merely ministerial. Downing, 325 A.2d at 527. In this case, the court as well as the clerk had authority to enter the default.

We have considered the remaining issues raised by Sullins but find no merit in any of them and conclude they do not warrant discussion. We find no error in the proceeding of the district court and therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

      . These rules have recently been renumbered as rules 1.443(2) and 1.972(2), respectively.

      . Renumbered as rule 1.442(2).


author: LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

text:
    In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF S.J.D. S.J.D., Appellant.
    No. 00-0744.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    April 3, 2002.

      Steven J. Drahozal, Coralville, pro se.
   LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

Steven J. Drahozal appeals from a district court ruling denying his request to unseal his adoption records so that he can learn the identity of his biological parents. He contends he has established the statutory requirement of good cause to unseal such records. He also contends that our statutory provisions requiring sealing of adoption records violate his right to free speech under the Federal and Iowa Constitutions. Because we conclude Steven has failed to establish such good cause and that the challenged statutes do not violate his right to free speech, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Steven was born in Iowa City on June 27, 1971. John and Sharon Drahozal took custody of Steven on July 2, 1971, and the Drahozals’ legal adoption of Steven was finalized in August 1972.

In February 2000, Steven filed a petition to unseal records pertaining to his adoption. See Iowa Code § 600.16A(2)(b) (1999). He alleged that good cause existed to open the records and that denial of his access to the records would violate his constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection. He also filed an “affidavit consenting to release of identifying information.” See Iowa Code § 600.16A(3)(b). No adverse party responded to the petition.

In March, Steven filed an amended petition, adding an allegation that denial of his access to the records would violate his right to free speech. He also filed a “request for judicial notice of adjudicative facts,” asking the court to take judicial notice of several treatises written by adoption experts. He submitted excerpts from these treatises following a hearing later in March.

Steven, his wife, Allison, and his adoptive parents testified at the hearing. His adoptive parents testified they were not opposed to Steven’s search for his biological parents. Steven testified he wanted to obtain information from his adoption records and find his biological parents. His reasons for wanting to find them were to (1) satisfy his curiosity, that is, to see if someone else looks like him, or if he has siblings; (2) thank them for what they did; and (3) obtain medical information.

Steven’s desire to obtain medical information stems from his own mental condition. At age 15, Steven was hospitalized because of a severe depression. He suffers from manic depression and takes Prozac to treat the illness. Steven testified he wanted to know if the manic depression is hereditary, and if so, to find out whether his biological family may be undergoing more effective treatment than what he receives. He admitted, however, that the treatment he presently receives is effective. Additionally, Steven expressed concerns about the health of his two biological children from a previous marriage.

Steven has obtained some information about his biological parents from the adoption agency that handled the adoption. For example, he learned (1) his biological maternal grandfather suffered from diabetes; (2) his biological parents’ height, weight, and age at the time of Steven’s birth; and (3) his ethnic heritage — German and Irish.

Following the hearing, the district court denied Steven’s request, and Steven appealed.

II. Issues.

Steven raises two issues on appeal. He challenges the district court’s interpretation of the applicable statute. Specifically, he contends the district court erred when it ruled that the failure of Steven’s biological parents to file a waiver of confidentiality pursuant to Iowa Code section 600.16A(2)(b)(1) is dispositive of good cause.

Steven also contends that denial of his request to unseal his adoption records violates his right to free speech. He contends that the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Federal Constitution and Iowa Constitution encompasses the right to receive information, including private information such as adoption records.

III. Scope of Review.

To the extent Steven raises questions of statutory interpretation, our review is for correction of errors at law. State v. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d 587, 589 (Iowa 1997). Because this is an adoption-related equitable proceeding, our review of the factual issues is de novo. In re Adoption of Moriarty, 260 Iowa 1279, 1285, 152 N.W.2d 218, 221 (1967).

We review constitutional issues de novo. State v. Simpson, 587 N.W.2d 770, 771 (Iowa 1998). Because statutes are cloaked with a strong presumption of constitutionality, a party challenging a statute as unconstitutional carries a heavy burden of rebutting this presumption. In re Morrow, 616 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Iowa 2000). In this regard, the challenger must negate every reasonable basis upon which the statute could be upheld as constitutional. Id. The challenger must also show beyond a reasonable doubt that a statute violates the constitution. Johnston v. Veterans’ Plaza Auth., 535 N.W.2d 131, 132 (Iowa 1995). If a statute is susceptible to more than one construction, one of which is constitutional and the other not, we are obliged to adopt the construction which will uphold it. Santi v. Santi, 633 N.W.2d 312, 316 (Iowa 2001).

IV.The District Court’s Interpretation.

Iowa Code section 600.16A(2)(b) provides in relevant part:

All papers and records pertaining to ... an adoption shall not be open to inspection and the identity of the biological parents of an adopted person shall not be revealed except ... [t]he court, for good cause, shall order the opening of the permanent adoption record of the court for the adopted person who is an adult and reveal the names of either or both of the biological parents following consideration of ... the following:
(1) A biological parent may file an affidavit requesting that the court reveal or not reveal the parent’s identity. The court shall consider any such affidavit in determining whether there is good cause to order opening of the records

Iowa Code § 600.16A(2)(b) (emphasis added).

In its ruling, the-district court explained that it could open sealed adoption records

upon showing that good cause exists, and both the adult adoptee and the terminated biological parents have indicated by affidavit that they desire to have the records opened. [Iowa Code] § 600.16A(2)(b)(1).

The court concluded that because the biological parents had not filed such an affidavit, the court had no authority to open the records under section 600.16A(2)(b)(1).

Additionally, the court concluded that Steven had not presented competent medical evidence to show the information was necessary to save the life of, or prevent irreparable physical or mental harm to, the adoptee or the adoptee’s offspring. See Iowa Code § 600.16A(2)(d) (providing that the court “may, upon competent medical evidence, open termination or adoption records if opening is shown to be necessary to save the life of or prevent irreparable physical or mental harm to an adopted person or the person’s offspring”). Even with this showing, the court noted that it would still be required to “make every reasonable effort to prevent” the revelation of identifying information to the adop-tee. See id. (providing that even with the showing necessary to open the records, the court “shall make every reasonable effort to prevent the identity of the biological parents from becoming revealed under this paragraph to the adopted person”).

Steven contends the district court erred in concluding that the failure of the biological parents to file an affidavit waiving confidentiality is dispositive of “good cause.” We disagree with Steven’s characterization of the district court’s ruling, but we agree that the court erred in its interpretation of the statute.

The court did not rule that the failure of the biological parents to file a waiver of confidentiality was dispositive of good cause. Rather, the court ruled that the adult adoptee must show (1) good cause exists and (2) the adult adoptee and the biological parents have filed an affidavit waiving confidentiality. Nevertheless, this interpretation of the statute is erroneous.

The statute does not require a biological parent to file an affidavit requesting that the court reveal or not reveal the parent’s identity. Rather, the statute states that a biological parent “may” file such an affidavit. Iowa Code § 600.16A(2)(b)(1). By using the word “may,” the legislature signaled its intention to place the decision about whether to file an affidavit to reveal or not reveal the biological parent’s identity squarely in the discretion of that parent. Compare Iowa Code § 4.1(30)(e) (“may” confers a power), with id. § 4.1(30)(a) (“shall” imposes a duty), and id. § 4.1(30)(b) (“must” states a requirement).

In addition, the statute directs the court to “consider” an affidavit filed by the biological parents in determining whether good cause exists to unseal the adoption records. Iowa Code § 600.16A(2)(b)(1); see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 483 (1993) (defining “consider” as “to reflect on; think about with a degree of care or caution”). While the existence of an affidavit might influence the district court’s decision in one way or another, that fact should only be one part of the “good cause” determination, not a separate requirement, as the district court suggested. A determination of “good cause” should not rest on the existence of an affidavit filed by the biological parents. That brings us to two questions we must answer: what constitutes “good cause” to unseal adoption records, and whether Steven has shown the requisite “good cause.”

V. Good Cause.

A. Background. Our statute is silent on what constitutes “good cause” to unseal adoption records. We think some background would be helpful in understanding the concept of “good cause” in the context of unsealing adoption records.

Because English common law did not recognize the practice of adoption, adoption in this country is purely statutory. Jason Kuhns, Note, The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy: Breaking Down the Walls of Secrecy, 24 Golden Gate U.L.Rev. 259, 260 (Spring 1994) [hereinafter Kuhns]. In 1851, the Massachusetts Legislature passed the first general adoption law. Id. The early adoption statutes did not bar access to adoption records. Id. at 260-61.

A1916 New York statute was among the first statutes to bar access to adoption records. Id. at 261. However, only the public — not the actual parties to the adoption — were barred from access to such records. Id.

The following year, Minnesota became the first state to enact a law closing adoption files from inspection by adult adop-tees, their birth parents, and the general public. Id. By the end of the 1940s, most states had similar statutes. Id. Most provided that sealed adoption records could be opened only by court order. Melissa Arndt, Comment, Severed Roots: The Sealed Adoption Records Controversy, 6 N. Ill. U.L.Rev. 103, 105 (Winter 1986).

Iowa adopted a similar statute in 1941. 1941 Iowa Acts ch. 294, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 600.9 (1946)). It provided:

The complete record in adoption proceedings, after filing with the clerk of the court, shall be sealed by said clerk, and the record shall not thereafter be opened except on order of the court.

Iowa Code § 600.9 (1946).

Confidentiality has been and continues to be the touchstone for these adoption statutes. As one court noted,

[t]his confidentiality serves several purposes. It shields the adopted child from possibly disturbing facts surrounding his or her birth and parentage, it permits the adoptive parents to develop a close relationship with the child free from interference or distraction, and it provides the natural parents with an anonymity that they may consider vital. The State’s interest in fostering an orderly and supervised system of adoptions is closely tied to these interests of the parties involved.

Linda F.M. v. Dep’t of Health, 52 N.Y.2d 236, 437 N.Y.S.2d 283, 418 N.E.2d 1302, 1303 (1981) (citations omitted).

In the 1970s, in response to challenges from adoptees to the practice of sealing adoption records, states began to amend their adoption laws allowing adoptees access to their adoption records if they could show “special circumstances” or “good cause.” Brett S. Silverman, The Winds of Change in Adoption Laws: Should Adop-tees Have Access to Adoption Records?, 39 Fam. & Conciliation Courts Rev. 85, 85 (Jan.2001).

B. Purpose underlying the good cause exception. The “good cause” provision has been described as “an escape valve from the generally impenetrable nature of adoption records [that] permits individual judicial treatment where circumstances and justice so require.” Application of Hayden, 106 Misc.2d 849, 435 N.Y.S.2d 541, 542 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1981). The legislature has determined that this escape valve is to be used in “situations where the stringent confidentiality requirements may lead to harmful and untenuous results in a particular case.” Id.

1. The adoptee’s burden and the court’s function. To establish good cause, the adoptee must show a compelling need for the identifying information. Bradey v. Children’s Bureau of South Carolina, 275 S.C. 622, 274 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1981). And what constitutes a compelling need depends upon the circumstances of each case. Id.

The court’s function regarding “good cause” is to determine whether such cause exists and the extent of disclosure that is appropriate based on the facts of each case. Linda F.M., 437 N.Y.S.2d 283, 418 N.E.2d at 1304.

2. What courts have said constitutes good cause and does not constitute good cause. Good cause in the context of a request to unseal adoption records rests “upon an appropriate showing of psychological trauma or medical need.” Hayden, 435 N.Y.S.2d at 542 (petitioner’s allegation that her fear she may be a “DES Baby,” which caused strain in her psychological makeup and concern for her medical well-being, justified a full hearing on the merits of her petition to unseal adoption records); see also Juman v. Louise Wise Servs., 159 Misc.2d 314, 608 N.Y.S.2d 612, 617-18 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1994) (holding that adopted child’s schizophrenia was good cause for disclosure of information about the child’s biological parents “that goes beyond the scope of medical histories”). Such cause, however, must rest on more than mere curiosity. Linda F.M., 437 N.Y.S.2d 283, 418 N.E.2d at 1304.

Given the high burden the good cause requirement places on an adoptee, it is not surprising that an adoptee’s attempt to secure identifying information has failed in a number of cases. See, e.g., Aimone v. Finley, 113 Ill.App.3d 507, 69 Ill.Dec. 433, 447 N.E.2d 868, 870 (1983) (expectation of possibility that an adopted person may inherit from her natural parents is not sufficient cause to open sealed adoption files); In re Adoption of Baby S., 308 N.J.Super. 207, 705 A.2d 822, 823, 825 (1997) (natural mother who wanted to identify and locate the child she gave up for adoption, speak to him, tell him she is his biological mother, and perhaps leave her estate to him in her will, failed to show good cause for unsealing of records); Backes v. Catholic Family & Cmty. Servs., 210 N.J.Super. 186, 509 A.2d 283, 293 (1985) (adult adoptee with “no psychological problem of a pathological nature,” and who did not need additional medical information for the treatment of his child failed to show “good cause” required for unsealing'adoption records); Application of Romano, 109 Misc.2d 99, 438 N.Y.S.2d 967, 971 (1981) (failure to show “good cause” where petition contained no affidavit to attest to the validity of adoptee’s claim of psychological need to learn “where his ‘natural roots’ lie with respect to race, nationality, religion, culture and heredity”).

C. Analysis. Earlier we mentioned the interests that confidentiality in adoption statues are meant to serve. These interests include those of the adoptee, whether a minor or adult, the adopting parents, the biological parents, and the state. We think section 600.16A is the legislature’s attempt to balance those interests. The balance has been struck heavily in favor of keeping adoption records sealed.

Yet, in two instances, the legislature has left open a window of opportunity for unsealing adoption records. One instance involves the good cause exception. However, we think the bar is high as far as proving this exception. Proof of this appears in Iowa Code section 600.16A(2)(d), which pertinently provides:

The juvenile court or court may, upon competent medical evidence, open termination or adoption records if opening is shown to be necessary to save the life of or prevent irreparable physical or mental harm to an adopted person or the person’s offspring. The juvenile court or court shall make every reasonable effort to prevent the identity of the biological parents from becoming revealed under this paragraph to the adopted person. The juvenile court may, however, permit revelation of the identity of the biological parents to medical personnel attending the adopted person or the person’s offspring. These medical personnel shall make every reasonable effort to prevent the identity of the biological parents from becoming revealed to the adopted person.

Iowa Code § 600.16A(2)(d). Thus, the court may order the adoption record unsealed only if competent medical evidence shows such action is necessary to save the life of or prevent irreparable physical or mental harm to an adopted person or the person’s offspring. Additionally, even if medical need dictates opening the records, the legislature has taken pains to insure as reasonably as possible that identifying information will not be revealed in the process.

Finally, to underscore how important the legislature believes it is to preserve the privacy of the biological parents and prevent revelation of their identities, the legislature has made it a criminal offense to reveal such information contrary to the terms of the statute. See Iowa Code § 600.16A(5) (“Any person, other than the adopting parents or the adopted person, who discloses information in violation of this section, is guilty of a simple misdemeanor.”).

The other instance in which the legislature has allowed inroads into the confidentiality of adoption records is found in Iowa Code section 600.16A(3). That provision provides for revealing identifying information regarding biological parents and adult adopted children if both the adult adopted child and a biological parent have placed in the adoption record written consent to reveal their identities. Either party, however, may withdraw that consent at any time by placing a written withdrawal of consent in the adoption record. See Iowa Code § 600.16A(3).

Under our statute, we think good cause to invade the privacy of biological parents by revealing their identities without their consent should include no less than a showing of a medical need to save the life of or prevent irreparable physical or mental harm to an adult adopted person requesting the identifying information. This showing should be made upon competent medical evidence. This of course is the same standard found in section 600.16A(2)(d), earlier mentioned, and comports with the standard for good cause adopted by most courts. We see no reason why the standard for good cause should be any less onerous than the section 600.16A(2)(d) standard when a biological parent has not consented to a revelation of his or her identity.

As mentioned, section 600.16A(2)(b)(l) allows the court to consider a biological parent’s consent to reveal his or her identity in determining good cause. However, because the facts here do not show that either biological parent has filed an affidavit requesting that the court reveal then-identities, we make no determination regarding how that additional factor should affect a good cause showing.

Steven has argued forcibly that scholars and authorities in the area of adoption now view the process of adoption in a light different from what the view was when the present statute was enacted. While some may agree that “changed attitudes may warrant a new look at the purpose and effect of this law by the legislature,” it is not our function “to redraft or to interpret laws differently” from what the legislature intended “solely to reflect current values or lifestyles.” Hayden, 435 N.Y.S.2d at 542. We agree with the court in Hayden that “[i]t is best left to the legislature to distinguish the changing mores from shifting moods in society.” Id.

The record before us falls far short of meeting the high standard we feel the legislature has set for a showing of good cause to reveal the identifying information Steven seeks. He testified that he wants to find his biological parents to (1) satisfy his curiosity, (2) thank them for what they did, and (3) obtain medical information. Steven’s wife testified that he became more restless when he started to get involved in his research and questioning about his biological family. Clearly, Steven’s “curiosity” and “restlessness” are not a sufficient showing of good cause.

The record does reflect that Steven has been treated for a mental illness, manic depression. However, he presented no medical evidence to link the disorder to his status as an adopted child. It also appears from the record that the disorder, while it may be hereditary, has no other relation to his status as an adoptee. Moreover, he expressed more of a curiosity over whether the condition is hereditary than any particular medical reason for wanting to know. Finally, the record is clear that Steven has been able to function in society, in spite of his mental condition and in spite of his stated “curiosity” and “distraction” over finding his biological parents. He has graduated from law school, and apparently fulfills his duties as a husband and father without significant problems.

In short, Steven has failed to show a compelling need for the identifying information. His proof falls far short of establishing by competent medical evidence that he needs the identifying information to save his life or to prevent irreparable physical or mental harm to himself — the minimum showing necessary to meet the high standard set by the legislature for the good cause requirement.

That brings us to the last issue Steven raises: whether the statute violates what he claims is his constitutional right to receive information, including private information such as adoption records.

VI. Right to Receive Information.

Steven contends that denying him — an adult adoptee — the right to see his adoption records violates his freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution. In support of his contention, he argues that freedom of speech under these constitutional provisions encompass the right to receive information, including private information such as adoption records.

The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law abridging free speech. This prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 1217-18 (1940). The Iowa Constitution also protects free speech and imposes the “same restrictions on the regulation of speech as does the Federal Constitution.” State v. Milner, 571 N.W.2d 7, 12 (Iowa 1997).

To date “[n]o federal or state court has accepted” this constitutional challenge. Kuhns, 24 Golden Gate U.L. Rev at 268. As Kuhns explains,

[although recognizing that adoptees have a general right to privacy and to receive information, the courts have rejected the argument that adoptees have a fundamental right to learn the identities of their biological parents. The courts maintain that no constitutional or personal right is unconditional and absolute to the exclusion of the rights of all other individuals. The right to privacy and to information asserted by adoptees directly conflicts with the right to privacy of birth parents to be left alone. Due to these conflicting interests, the sealed records statutes are upheld because they bear a rational relationship to the permissible state objective of protecting the integrity of the adoption process. Although the adoptee may no longer need the state’s protection upon reaching adulthood, courts state that the birth parents’ interest in confidentiality may actually become stronger.

Id. at 268-69 (footnotes omitted); accord In re Roger B., 84 Ill.2d 323, 49 Ill.Dec. 731, 418 N.E.2d 751, 757 (1981); Mills v. Atlantic City Dep’t of Vital Statistics, 148 N.J.Super. 302, 372 A.2d 646, 650-52 (1977). We agree with this analysis and adopt it. We conclude therefore that Steven has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that our statutory provisions regarding sealing of adoption records violate free speech under the Federal or Iowa Constitutions.

VI. Disposition.

Although the district court erred in its interpretation of Iowa Code section 600.16A(2)(b)(1), we conclude the court did not err in denying Steven’s request to unseal his adoption records. We conclude based on the record before us that Steven has failed to show good cause to unseal these records. Additionally, we reject his claim that our adoption statutes requiring sealing of adoption records violate his freedom of speech under either the Federal or Iowa Constitutions. For these reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.


author: CARTER, Justice.

text:
    CITY OF WEST DES MOINES, Appellee, v. Paul ENGLER and Deborah Helt, Appellants.
    No. 00-0147.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    April 3, 2002.

      Sally Frank, Drake University Legal Clinic, Des Moines, for appellants.
    Gregory C. Sisk, Clive, and Thomas P. Slater of Meyer & Slater, West Des Moines, for appellee.
    Randall C. Wilson, Des Moines, for ami-cus curiae Iowa Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.
   CARTER, Justice.

Defendants, Paul Engler and Deborah Helt, have been granted discretionary review of their simple-misdemeanor convictions for trespassing in violation of West Des Moines, Iowa Ordinance 5 — 2—2—3(b) (1998). They contend that their actions were protected as a right of free speech guaranteed by article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented, we conclude that the distribution of leaflets in a privately owned shopping mall is not an activity protected as a right of free speech. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

On December 24, 1998, defendants gathered with others near the entrance to the J.C. Penney store in the Valley West Mall and attempted to distribute leaflets to mall patrons. The leaflets were entitled “Sweatshop Products Sold at J.C. Penney, Van Heusen Grinch Steals Christmas in Guatemala” and contained therein were statements urging mall patrons to contact the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation and the J.C. Penney store manager.

Mall safety officers requested that the defendants cease the distribution of the leaflets in the mall and move their protest to the public street surrounding the mall. Despite the request, defendants continued to distribute the leaflets. West Des Moines police officers made a second request that defendants cease distribution of the leaflets, but that request was also refused. Defendants were then arrested on charges of criminal trespass. The charges were submitted at a bench trial on stipulated facts. A district associate judge found defendants guilty of trespassing in violation of the local ordinance. Defendants next appealed to a district judge, who upheld their convictions.

Defendants assert that their convictions violate the right of free speech guaranteed to them by article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution. Their appeal is predicated entirely on state constitutional law. Undoubtedly, that path has been taken because the United States Supreme Court has rejected similar free-speech claims based on the First Amendment to the federal constitution. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d 131, 143 (1972). A substantial impediment also confronts defendants’ free-speech claims under the state constitution as a result of our decision in State v. Lacey, 465 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 1991).

In Lacey union members were convicted of criminal trespass for distributing on the premises of a restaurant handbills that urged potential customers to boycott that establishment. In rejecting the defendants’ claims that their activities were protected by the free-speech guarantees of the federal and Iowa constitutions, we discussed in detail the Lloyd decision of the Supreme Court, which foreclosed their federal free-speech claims and then declared “[w]e conclude that defendants’ free-speech argument must fail under both the federal and Iowa Constitutions.” Lacey, 465 N.W.2d at 540.

Defendants urge that our Lacey decision is not conclusive of their free-speech rights under the Iowa Constitution because the argument they are making is premised on specific constitutional language not considered by this court in the Lacey opinion. Defendants note that the material portions of article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution provide:

Every person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. [The balance of this clause pertains to the elements of actions for libel.]

Defendants argue that the first sentence in section 7 operates entirely independently from the second sentence and that the free-speech guarantee provided in the Iowa Constitution is not limited to abuses by state action. An argument similar to the one that defendants are making was presented to the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.1999), in a ease involving protests against the fur trade at the Mall of America. The language of the Minnesota Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech was nearly identical with that of the Iowa Constitution, which we have quoted. The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the constitutional language at issue here is, like its federal First Amendment counterpart, designed to protect against state action.

The Minnesota court in Wicklund noted that the language of the free-speech guarantees contained in the Iowa and Minnesota constitutions are not unique. At that time, the bills of rights of thirty-three other states contained language nearly identical to the Iowa and Minnesota free-speech guarantees. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d at 799. A substantial majority of the courts in those states have interpreted this free-speech language as being coextensive with that of the First Amendment to the federal constitution. See Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Comm., 159 Ariz. 371, 767 P.2d 719, 723 (1988); Citizens for Ethical Gov’t, Inc. v. Gwinnett Place Assocs., 260 Ga. 245, 392 S.E.2d 8, 9-10 (1990); People v. DiGuida, 152 Ill.2d 104, 178 Ill.Dec. 80, 604 N.E.2d 336, 344-45 (1992); Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich. 188, 378 N.W.2d 337, 347 (1985); Dossett v. First State Bank, 261 Neb. 959, 627 N.W.2d 131, 138 (2001); S.O.C., Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 23 P.3d 243, 251 (Nev.2001); SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99, 488 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (1985); State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 273 S.E.2d 708, 712 (1981); Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco, 68 Ohio St.3d 221, 626 N.E.2d 59, 62 (1994); Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or. 38, 11 P.3d 228, 243 (2000); W. Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 512 Pa. 23, 515 A.2d 1331, 1339 (1986); Charleston Joint Venture v. McPherson, 308 S.C. 145, 417 S.E.2d 544, 548 (1992); Southcenter Joint Venture v. Nat'l Democratic Policy Comm., 113 Wash.2d 413, 780 P.2d 1282, 1291 (1989); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis.2d 492, 407 N.W.2d 832, 836-37 (1987).

Defendants urge that the courts which have reached these decisions have not been faithful to the language of the constitutional provisions that were under consideration. They argue that the language of article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution and of many other state constitutions create both a limitation against state action (the second sentence) and an affirmative protection against the abridgement of freedom of speech by other potential sources of interference (the first sentence). In rejecting a similar argument, the Michigan court in Woodland stated:

The firmly established doctrine that constitutionally guaranteed individual rights are drawn to restrict government conduct and to provide protection from governmental infringement and excesses is not unique to the federal Bill of Rights. This has generally been the view with respect to state bills of rights as well.

Woodland, 378 N.W.2d at 344 (citing Rottschaefer, American Constitutional Law § 305 (1939); McClain, Constitutional Law § 205 (2d ed.1910); Cooley, Constitutional Law 219 (3d ed. 1898)).

The court in Woodland went on to opine that

[i]f all civil rights, in the sense of rights which a person may assert against his fellow citizens, were to be incorporated in the constitution, the distinction between the constitution as fundamental law — defining the frame of government and the relation of the government to the citizen — and the general laws of the state — defining rights and obligations arising out private relationships — would be lost.

378 N.W.2d at 346. We agree with the position of the Michigan court and do not believe this interpretation does violence to the language of article I, section 7. Our interpretation is consistent with the language of the first two sentences of that clause if they are read in pari materia.

Defendants’ principal policy argument as to why we should not continue to apply our Lacey decision is that places where people assemble today are different from the places where they assembled in times past. Defendants urge that, because people no longer gather in large numbers on public streets and sidewalks, those locations are no longer suitable places for the distribution of political leaflets. To be where the crowd is distributors of political leaflets must go to the malls. Assuming the accuracy of the premise on which this argument is based, it does not convert privately owned and operated business locations into public places. For that to occur, there must be, as the Minnesota court has recognized, “either a symbiotic relationship or a sufficiently close nexus between the government and the private entity so that the ‘power, property and prestige’ of the state has been in fact placed behind the challenged conduct.” Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d at 802.

The Supreme Court recognized in Lloyd:

[Property [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a freestanding store, with abutting parking space for customers assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there. Nor is size alone the controlling factor. The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center.

407 U.S. at 569, 92 S.Ct. at 2229, 33 L.Ed.2d at 143. We agree.

We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.