Devine v. Wonderlich (1980) 288 N.W.2d 902 288 N.W.2d 902 (Cite as: 288 N.W.2d 902) Supreme Court of Iowa. Francis P. DEVINE, Appellee, v. Raymond James WONDERLICH, Appellant. No. 62816. Feb. 20, 1980. De facto officeholder appealed from summary judgment entered by the Keokuk District Court, Richard J. Vogel, J., in favor of de jure officeholder, eventual winner of contested election, for salary received by de facto officeholder when serving on board of supervisors after having been adjudged winner of election by contest court and district court. The Supreme Court, Rees, J., held that de jure officeholder who ultimately prevails in an election may not recover from the de facto officeholder the salary he or she received while serving in office during pendency of contest litigation. Reversed and remanded with directions. West Headnotes [1] Officers and Public Employees 101 283k101 Most Cited Cases De jure officeholder who ultimately prevails in an election may not recover from the de facto officeholder the salary he or she received while serving in office during pendency of contest litigation; overruling Harding v. City of Des Moines, 193 Iowa 885, 188 N.W. 135. [2] Officers and Public Employees 101 283k101 Most Cited Cases Incumbent officeholders who choose to remain in office while challenging an adverse judgment from contest court are outside scope of ruling that de jure officeholder who ultimately prevails in an election may not recover from the de facto officeholder the salary he or she received while serving in office during pendency of contest litigation. I.C.A. § 62.20. Page 1 *902 Timothy F. Gerard of Baumert & Gerard, Sigourney, for appellant. James P. Reilly of Spayde & Reilly, Oskaloosa, for appellee. Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and REES, HARRIS, McGIVERIN and LARSON, JJ. REES, Justice. Raymond James Wonderlich appeals from an adverse summary judgment granted plaintiff Francis P. Devine for $12,749.94, the amount which Wonderlich received as salary while serving on the Keokuk County board of supervisors pursuant to the decisions of an election contest court and the district court. Devine had been adjudicated the winner of the election for the position in question by this court approximately eighteen months after the defendant Wonderlich assumed the office. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for dismissal of plaintiff's action. *903 After a canvass of the votes cast in the November 1976 election for the position of county supervisor, plaintiff was declared the winner by two votes. Defendant Wonderlich, then incumbent in the office, filed an election contest and, pursuant to section 62.19, The Code 1975, the contest court declared Wonderlich the winner of the election, revoked the plaintiff's certificate of election and caused a certificate of election to be issued to the defendant. Wonderlich thereupon assumed office on January 1, 1977. Upon appeal by Devine, the district court affirmed the decision of the contest court. On further appeal to this court, we reversed the district court ruling and held that plaintiff had actually won the election. Devine v. Wonderlich, 268 N.W.2d 620, 630 (Iowa 1978). On July 21, 1978, the district court directed that a certificate of election be issued to Devine. On August 29, 1978, Devine instituted the present action, seeking from the defendant the amount 209 © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.