Iowa Code » Chapter 679A — ARBITRATION
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 679A.2 (2026)

Proceedings to compel or stay arbitration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. On application of a party showing an agreement described in section 679A.1 and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the district court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration. However, if the opposing party denies the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate, the district court shall proceed to the determination of the issue and shall order arbitration if a valid and enforceable agreement is found to exist. If no such agreement exists, the court shall deny the application. 2. On application, the district court may stay an arbitration proceeding commenced or threatened on a showing that there is no valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The issue, when in substantial and bona fide dispute, shall be tried and the stay ordered if a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate does not exist. If an agreement is found to exist, the court shall order the parties to proceed to arbitration. 3. If an issue referable to arbitration under the alleged agreement is involved in an action or proceeding pending in a district court, the application shall be made to that court. Otherwise, the application may be made in a district court as provided in section 679A.16. 4. An action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application for an order to arbitrate has been made under this section or, if the issue is severable, the stay may be made with respect to the part of the issue which is subject to arbitration only. When the application is made in such an action or proceeding, the order for arbitration shall include the stay. 5. An order for arbitration shall not be refused on the ground that the claim in issue lacks\n\nTue Dec 09 21:57:19 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 679A (23, 0) §679A.2, ARBITRATION 2\n\nmerit or because any fault or grounds for the claim sought to be arbitrated have not been shown. [C51, §2102; R60, §3679; C73, §3419; C97, §4388; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12698; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §679.4; 81 Acts, ch 202, §2] C83, §679A.2 Referred to in §679A.12, 679A.17

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Modern Piping, Inc. v. Blackhawk Automatic Sprinklers, Inc., 581 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Modern Piping, Inc. v. Blackhawk Automatic Sprinklers, Inc., 581 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 1998). · cites it 26× “Compare Iowa Code § 679A.2, with 9 U.S.C. § 3 (1988) (providing *621 that the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had”).”
Pennsylvania Life Ins. Co. v. Simoni, 641 N.W.2d 807 (Iowa 2002). · cites it 6× “17(1) provides for an appeal as of right from "[a]n order denying an application to compel arbitration made under section 679A.2.” Here, Penn Life chose to file motions to dismiss in lieu of following the procedure set out in section 679A.”
Des Moines Asphalt & Paving Co. v. Colcon Indus. Corp., 500 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 1993). · cites it 8× “Kroenke claims that, pursuant to Iowa Code section 679A.2 (1991), the district court was required to stay the foreclosure action and compel arbitration.”
Wesley Ret. Servs., Inc. v. Hansen Lind Meyer, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 1999). · cites it 4× “” Iowa Code § 679A.2(1) (emphasis added). This statute does not provide for the exercise of discretion by the district court; if the statutory prerequisites for arbitration are met, the court “shall” order arbitration.”
Deerfield Constr. Co. v. Crisman Corp., 616 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 2000). · cites it 6× “Deer-field then filed a motion to stay arbitration pursuant to Iowa Code section 679A.2(2) (1997). In the action to stay the arbitration, the district court refused the stay and allowed the arbitration to proceed.”
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Union 2548 v. Victor Fluid Power Co., 369 N.W.2d 805 (Iowa 1985). · cites it 6× “There was no arbitration agreement, the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 679A.2, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.”
Penford Prods. Co. v. C.J. Schneider Eng'g Co., 808 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Because of its ruling, the district court found Penford’s motion was moot.”
Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Iowa Dist. Court for Woodbury Cnty., 372 N.W.2d 261 (Iowa 1985). · cites it 6× “The Kourpiases filed suit in district court against Mutual, seeking a court order directing Mutual to proceed with arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the insurance policy.”
Fell P'ship v. Heartland Co-Op (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “” We believe the substance of the motion and its treatment by the district court show Heartland’s first motion was in fact an application to compel arbitration under Iowa Code section 679A.2. IV. Conclusion Heartland’s April 18th motion was a motion to compel arbitration, and…”
Nikulski Fin., Inc. v. Alan D. Lewis & Susan K. Lewis (Iowa Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “Moreover, the petition in this matter prayed for a stay of arbitration pursuant to Iowa Code section 679A.2 (2021), under which statute our review is for correction of errors at law.”
Jaks Props., LLC v. St. Croix Hospice, LLC (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “Jude being brought into the suit, the procedures in Iowa Code section 679A.2 may permit an order for arbitration and a stay of the litigation pending arbitration.”
S.K., a legally incapacitated Minor by & through his Conservator, Thomas T. Tarbox v. Obstetric & Gynecologic Assocs. of Iowa City & Coralville, P.C., & Mercy Hosp. Iowa City & Jill Christine Goodman (Iowa 2024). · cites it 6× “2d 616 , 620–22 (Iowa 1998) (holding litigation conduct waived arbitration rights under Iowa Code section 679A.2), overruled on other grounds by Wesley Ret.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Iowa Code § 679A.2(1) — 5 cases
Pennsylvania Life Ins. Co. v. Simoni, 641 N.W.2d 807 (Iowa 2002). “17(1) provides for an appeal as of right from "[a]n order denying an application to compel arbitration made under section 679A.2.” Here, Penn Life chose to file motions to dismiss in lieu of following the procedure set out in section 679A.”
Wesley Ret. Servs., Inc. v. Hansen Lind Meyer, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 1999). “” Iowa Code § 679A.2(1) (emphasis added). This statute does not provide for the exercise of discretion by the district court; if the statutory prerequisites for arbitration are met, the court “shall” order arbitration.”
Des Moines Asphalt & Paving Co. v. Colcon Indus. Corp., 500 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 1993). “Kroenke claims that, pursuant to Iowa Code section 679A.2 (1991), the district court was required to stay the foreclosure action and compel arbitration.”
Fell P'ship v. Heartland Co-Op (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). “” We believe the substance of the motion and its treatment by the district court show Heartland’s first motion was in fact an application to compel arbitration under Iowa Code section 679A.2. IV. Conclusion Heartland’s April 18th motion was a motion to compel arbitration, and…”
Conlon Constr. Co. v. Tri-State Concrete Constr., Inc., Top Notch Plumbing Heating & Elec., Inc., & Runde Elec., LLC (Iowa Ct. App. 2026).
— Iowa Code § 679A.2(2) — 4 cases
Deerfield Constr. Co. v. Crisman Corp., 616 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 2000). “Deer-field then filed a motion to stay arbitration pursuant to Iowa Code section 679A.2(2) (1997). In the action to stay the arbitration, the district court refused the stay and allowed the arbitration to proceed.”
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Union 2548 v. Victor Fluid Power Co., 369 N.W.2d 805 (Iowa 1985). “There was no arbitration agreement, the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 679A.2, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.”
Fell P'ship v. Heartland Co-Op (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). “” We believe the substance of the motion and its treatment by the district court show Heartland’s first motion was in fact an application to compel arbitration under Iowa Code section 679A.2. IV. Conclusion Heartland’s April 18th motion was a motion to compel arbitration, and…”
Nikulski Fin., Inc. v. Alan D. Lewis & Susan K. Lewis (Iowa Ct. App. 2022). “Moreover, the petition in this matter prayed for a stay of arbitration pursuant to Iowa Code section 679A.2 (2021), under which statute our review is for correction of errors at law.”
— Iowa Code § 679A.2(4) — 3 cases
Wesley Ret. Servs., Inc. v. Hansen Lind Meyer, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 1999). “” Iowa Code § 679A.2(1) (emphasis added). This statute does not provide for the exercise of discretion by the district court; if the statutory prerequisites for arbitration are met, the court “shall” order arbitration.”
Jaks Props., LLC v. St. Croix Hospice, LLC (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). “Jude being brought into the suit, the procedures in Iowa Code section 679A.2 may permit an order for arbitration and a stay of the litigation pending arbitration.”
Conlon Constr. Co. v. Tri-State Concrete Constr., Inc., Top Notch Plumbing Heating & Elec., Inc., & Runde Elec., LLC (Iowa Ct. App. 2026).
— Iowa Code § 679A.2(5) — 1 case
Jaks Props., LLC v. St. Croix Hospice, LLC (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). “Jude being brought into the suit, the procedures in Iowa Code section 679A.2 may permit an order for arbitration and a stay of the litigation pending arbitration.”
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.