1.904(1) Findings; conclusions; judgment. The court trying an issue of fact without a jury, whether by equitable or ordinary proceedings, shall find the facts in writing, separately stating its conclusions of law, and direct an appropriate judgment. A party, on appeal, may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain any finding without having objected to it by motion or otherwise. No request for findings is necessary for purposes of review. Findings of a master shall be deemed those of the court to the extent it adopts them.
Rule 1.904.Findings by court
Division IX: Trial and Judgment · Last amended March 1, 2017 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceRule 1.904 requires a court trying facts without a jury to issue written findings and separate legal conclusions, lets a party challenge the evidence's sufficiency on appeal without having objected below, and, per the official Comment, makes the timely filing of any rule 1.904(2) motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend extend the deadline for a notice of appeal, with one exception for successive motions.
Full Text of Rule 1.904
(2) Motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend. On motion joined with or filed within the time allowed for a motion for new trial, the findings and conclusions may be reconsidered, enlarged, or amended and the judgment or decree modified accordingly or a different judgment or decree substituted. Resistances to such motions and replies may be filed and supporting briefs may be served as provided in rules 1.431 (4) and 1.431 (5).
(3) Motions to reconsider, enlarge, or amend other court orders, rulings, judgments, or decrees; time for filing. In addition to proceedings encompassed by rule 1.904 (1), a rule 1.904 (2) motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend another court order, ruling, judgment, or decree will be considered timely if filed within 15 days after the filing of the order, judgment, or decree to which it is directed.
(4) Successive rule 1.904 (2) motions. Successive rule 1.904 (2) motions by a party are prohibited unless the court has modified its order, ruling, judgment, or decree and the subsequent rule 1.904 (2) motion is directed only at the modification.
Comment
Rules 1.904 (3) and 1.904 (4). Rules 1.904 (3) and 1.904 (4) supersede prior case law that held a timely
rule 1.904 (2) motion must also have been "proper" to extend the time for appeal. See, e.g., Hedlund v. State, 875 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2016). To obviate controversies over whether a rule 1.904 (2) motion tolls the time for appeal, the rule authorizes any timely rule 1.904 (2) motion to extend the appeal deadline, subject to one exception in rule 1.904 (4).
Under rule 1.904, the timely filing of a rule 1.904 (2) motion extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or an application for interlocutory appeal. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.101 (1)(b) and 6.104 (1)(b)(2). However, the rule does not address whether a rule 1.904 (2) motion preserves error for purposes of appeal as to evidence or arguments raised for the first time in that motion. See, e.g., Tenney v. Atlantic Associates, 594 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1999). The rule also is not intended to affect prior case law concerning a court's inherent authority to reconsider. See Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Lagle, 430 N.W.2d 393, 395-96 (Iowa 1988). [Court Order November 18, 2016, effective March 1, 2017]
Plain-English Summary
When a judge, not a jury, decides the facts of a case, Rule 1.904(1) requires more than an announced result. The court has to find the facts in writing, state its legal conclusions separately, and direct an appropriate judgment. That written record matters on appeal: a party can challenge whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding without ever having objected to it in the trial court, and no party has to request findings just to preserve the right to challenge them later. When a master's findings are involved, they count as the court's own findings to the extent the court adopts them.
Rule 1.904(2) then gives every party a chance to ask the court to revisit that decision — a motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend the findings and conclusions, filed together with or within the time allowed for a new-trial motion, which can lead to a modified judgment or an entirely different one. Rule 1.904(3) extends the same kind of motion to other court orders, rulings, judgments, or decrees outside Rule 1.904(1), so long as it is filed within 15 days of the order or decision it targets. Rule 1.904(4) limits a party to one such motion per order unless the court modifies its ruling — only then can a party file a second motion, and only about the modification itself.
The official Comment to Rule 1.904 flags a point worth knowing before it comes up: the timely filing of a rule 1.904(2) motion extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or an application for interlocutory appeal. The Comment explains that this superseded prior case law, including Hedlund v. State, which had required a rule 1.904(2) motion to be “proper” — not just timely — before it would extend the appeal deadline. Rules 1.904(3) and (4) removed that uncertainty: any timely rule 1.904(2) motion now extends the appeal clock, with the one exception being the bar on successive motions in Rule 1.904(4). The Comment is careful to note what the rule does not decide — it does not address whether a rule 1.904(2) motion preserves error for evidence or arguments raised for the first time in that motion, and it does not affect a court's separate, inherent authority to reconsider its own rulings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a judge have to produce when deciding facts without a jury?
Rule 1.904(1) requires the court to find the facts in writing, state its conclusions of law separately, and direct an appropriate judgment. A party does not need to have requested findings, or objected to them below, to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
Does filing a motion to reconsider under rule 1.904(2) affect my deadline to appeal?
Yes, and this is the point the official Comment calls out directly: the timely filing of a rule 1.904(2) motion extends the deadline for filing a notice of appeal or an application for interlocutory appeal. The one exception involves successive rule 1.904(2) motions, which Rule 1.904(4) restricts.
Did the rule change how courts used to handle this?
Yes. The Comment explains that rules 1.904(3) and (4) superseded prior case law, including Hedlund v. State, which required a rule 1.904(2) motion to be “proper,” not just timely, to extend the time for appeal. The current rule extends the appeal deadline based on timely filing alone, subject only to the successive-motion limit.
Can I file a second motion to reconsider the same order?
Only in one situation. Rule 1.904(4) prohibits successive rule 1.904(2) motions by the same party unless the court has modified its order, ruling, judgment, or decree, in which case a further motion is allowed but only as to the modification.
Does a rule 1.904(2) motion also preserve error on new arguments raised in it for the first time?
The Comment notes that the rule does not address that question one way or the other — it extends the appeal deadline, but it does not decide whether raising evidence or arguments for the first time in a rule 1.904(2) motion preserves error on those points for appeal.
Source & verification. Rule text and the Comment are
reproduced verbatim from the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Iowa Supreme Court. Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: iowa rule 1904 motion1.904(2) motion extends appeal deadline iowamotion to reconsider enlarge amend iowaiowa notice of appeal deadline extension