Iowa Code » Chapter 639 — ATTACHMENT
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 639.60 (2026)

Intervention — petition

✓ Iowa Code 2026 (laws through the 2025 session)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person other than the defendant may, before the sale of any attached property, or before the payment to the plaintiff of the proceeds thereof, or any attached debt, present a petition verified by oath to the court, disputing the validity of the attachment, or stating a claim to the property or money, or to an interest in or lien on it, under any other attachment or otherwise, and setting forth the facts upon which the claim is founded. [R60, §3237; C73, §3016; C97, §3928; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12136; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §639.60] Intervention generally, R.C.P. 1.407

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1956–2018 · leading case: Glancy v. Ragsdale, 102 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa 1960).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Glancy v. Ragsdale, 102 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa 1960). · cites it 6× “” In fact, the point is ruled by sections 639.60 and 639.61, Code of 1958, discussed in Division VI below.”
Finken v. Douglas J. W., 910 N.W.2d 629 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “After Finken filed his application for prejudgment writ of attachment, Domina Law Group filed its petition to intervene in the attachment proceeding pursuant to Iowa Code section 639.60. Domina represented West in the prior suit against Western Marketing.”
Padzensky v. Kinzenbaw, 343 N.W.2d 467 (Iowa 1984). · cites it 2× “This motion challenged, among other things, the validity of the intervenors’ petitions since they had not been verified as required by Iowa Code section 639.60. Upon receiving *470 the motion, Riley and Solbrig immediately verified and refiled their petitions.”
Morse v. Morse, 77 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1956). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff filed answers and cross-petitions to the two petitions of intervention wherein, in substance, it was stated: The deeds to the intervenors were void, illegal, were obtained without legal consideration and were fraudulent; intervenors had not brought themselves…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.