Careers   |   Directories   |   Email Signup   |   Site Search   |   Site Map   |   Online Court Records   |   Pay Fines   |   Interpreter Roster   |  
   Friday, November 21, 2008         
Home / Main Menu
Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Judges
Opinions
Oral Argument Schedule
District Courts
News Service
Online Court Services
Public Information
Jury Service
Representing Yourself
Court Rules and Forms
Professional Regulation
Administration
Reports
RFPs

   
Printable View

  

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS, IOWA COURT OF APPEALS 

November 13, 2008 

  

Pursuant to Iowa Supreme Court Rule 6.14(5), an unpublished opinion of the Iowa Court of Appeals may be cited in a brief; however, unpublished opinions shall not constitute controlling legal authority. 

  

NOTE:  Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

  

No. 07-1886.   [8-476]   HAASE v. LOCAL 1142 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (6 pages $3.00) 

  

            Plaintiffs appeal the district court's rulings finding that federal law preempted their contract claims, their contracts were void and unenforceable, and in apportioning attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS:  We conclude that the district court did not err in determining that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by federal law. 

  

  

No. 07-0526.   [8-700]   PLUNKETT v. PLUNKETT 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Amanda Potterfield, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Vaithesawran and Doyle, JJ.  Potterfield, J. takes no part.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (9 pages $4.50) 

  

            Kimberly Aus appeals a district court order modifying Paul Plunkett's child support obligation.  OPINION HOLDS:  A. 1.  The district court did not vary from the child support guidelines.  2.  Based on the evidence that Paul does not pay state income tax, we reverse the child-support calculation and remand for re-calculation of Paul's obligation without the deduction for state income tax liability.  3.  We reverse the denial of Kimberly's request for a qualified additional dependent deduction and remand for a recalculation of her net monthly income with that deduction and a recalculation of Paul's child-support obligation.  4.  The district court properly imputed to Kimberly an annual income of $30,000.00.  5.  We strike the portion of the decree that provides for a reduction in Paul's child support in the event he no longer receives his housing allowance.  B.  The court did not abuse its discretion in determining the date in which the modification was made effective.  C.  Because Kimberly did not receive a child support payment for April 2006, she is entitled to judgment in her favor in the amount of $577.04 plus interest.  D.  We order Paul to pay $1000.00 towards Kimberly's appellate attorney fees. 

  

  

No. 07-1203.   [8-813]   STATE v. TATE 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (8 pages $4.00) 

  

            Defendant appeals his conviction, contending (1) his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to seek admission of a co-defendant's statements "under the hearsay exception for statements against interest" and (2) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him.  OPINION HOLDS:  Trial counsel did not breach an essential duty to the defendant by failing to argue the applicability of a hearsay exception when the argument would have been meritless, but the district court did abuse its discretion in failing to specify whether the defendant's sentence would run consecutively or concurrently with his sentence for violating parole. 

  

  

No. 08-1221.   [8-902]   IN RE Z.B.-D. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (7 pages $3.50) 

  

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children based on a partial loss of the trial transcript, and they also contend that clear and convincing evidence does not support the grounds for termination cited by the district court.  Finally, the mother argues that the Department of Human Services did not make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children.  OPINION HOLDS:  The partial loss of transcript was cured by adherence to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.10(3), clear and convincing evidence did support the grounds for termination cited by the district court, and the Department of Human Services did make reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with her children.    

  

  

No. 07-1243.   [8-760]   STATE v. GILBERT 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Miller, P.J., and Potterfield, J., and Robinson, S.J.  Opinion by Robinson, S.J.  (7 pages $3.50) 

  

            Members of the Dallas County Sheriff's Department stopped a vehicle on Interstate 80 on March 15, 2006, and found packages of money hidden inside the car.  Photographs of the money were taken that day at an Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) garage, and then again the next day at the sheriff's department.  The photographs showed one package of money was missing.  The sheriff, Brian Gilbert, had transported the packages of money from the DOT garage to the sheriff's department.  Once the matter was under investigation, Gilbert stated he had stopped at his house after leaving the DOT garage and before arriving at the sheriff's department with the money.  Gilbert was convicted of first-degree theft.  He appeals.  OPINION HOLDS:  We conclude there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict.  The packages of money had been placed in bags in the backseat of the vehicle driven by Gilbert, but when he arrived at the sheriff's department the bags were in the front seat.  At the DOT garage, a wallet had been placed on top of the money inside one of the bags, but was later found underneath the money.  Furthermore, while the money was being counted, Gilbert had possession of the packaging for the missing money. 

  

  

No. 06-2074.   [8-754]   BRINSON v. SPEE DEE DELIVERY 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don Nickerson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Vaitheswaran, J., and Schechtman, S.J.  Opinion by Schechtman, S.J.  (8 pages $4.00) 

  

            The decision of a deputy workers' compensation commissioner provided, "Defendants pay claimant outstanding medical costs related to services claimant received as a result of her injury and in the total amount of . . . $26,794.56."  A later nunc pro tunc order changed the award to provide "Defendants pay claimant's outstanding medical costs . . . ."  On judicial review, the district court affirmed the nunc pro tunc order, and claimant appeals.  OPINION HOLDS:  I.  Claimant asserts the employer has a duty to pay the entire $26,794.56 to her.  The nunc pro tunc order clarified the deputy's opinion, and removed any doubt as to how claimant's medical bills should be paid.  The nunc pro tunc order was appropriate under these circumstances.  II.  It is clear that the claimant did not offer any evidence of payment directly by her to the medical providers, and she is not entitled to any judgment, payment or reimbursement for those medical bills allowed by the deputy.  III.  The contention that there was an alleged agreement between the parties, after the deputy's decision, to pay the full amount to her, is without merit.  We affirm the decision of the district court. 

  

  

No.  07-1119.   [8-425]   TRUMM v. WESTPHAL  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Nancy A. Baumgartner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Hutink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.  Opinion by Eisenhauer, J.  (12 pages $6.00) 

  

Arnita Westphal appeals from a jury trial award of damages in favor of Joseph and Sarah Trumm on their breach-of-contract claim.  She argues: (1) the district court erred in allowing evidence of an oral lease agreement in violation of the statute of frauds; (2) the jury's finding that an oral lease existed was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; (3) the district court erred in allowing testimony of the Trumms' lost revenue; (4) the district court erred in denying her motion for a new trial; and (5) grid sampling and fertilizer damages awarded to the Trumms were unsupported by the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS:  I.  Because Westphal failed to object to the testimony regarding the existence of an oral contract, she has not preserved this issue for appeal.  II.  The jury's finding a five-year oral lease existed was supported by clear and convincing evidence.  III.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence regarding the Trumms' lost revenue.  IV.  We find that the district court was correct in denying Westphal's motion for a new trial.  V.  The jury's award of expenses for grid sampling, fertilizer, minerals, and lime was supported by the record. 

  

  

No.  07-1383.   [8-438]   KOSS v. IOWA CHICAGO & EASTERN RAILROAD 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James E. Kelley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Eisenhauer, J.  (15 pages $7.50) 

  

Donald Koss appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for new trial following a jury verdict in favor of Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad Corporation on his negligence and strict liability claims.  He contends new trial is warranted on the basis of (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) erroneous admission and exclusion of evidence, (3) error in the jury instructions, and (4) the verdict not being supported by the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Koss's motion for new trial on the grounds of the alleged newly discovered evidence.  II. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence documents produced after the discovery deadlines and certain business records.  Nor did it abuse its discretion in excluding certain witness testimony or evidence of a federal regulation.  III. The district court properly instructed the jury.  IV. Substantial evidence supports the verdict. 

  

  

No.  07-1707.   [8-466]   STATE v. ORTIZ  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Gary E. Wenell, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.  Opinion by Miller, J.  (12 pages $6.00) 

  

            On discretionary review the State contends that the district court erred in suppressing statements made by the defendant Ortiz during an interview by police officers because (1) good cause did not exist for Ortiz's untimely filing of his motion to suppress, (2) Ortiz was not in custody at the time of his interview by police officers, (3) Ortiz knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, and (4) Ortiz's statements were made voluntarily.  OPINION HOLDS:  We assume, without so deciding, that (1) good cause existed for Ortiz's more than ten-month delay in filing his motion to suppress, and (2) Ortiz was in custody at the time of his interview by police officers.  Upon our de novo review we conclude that (1) Ortiz knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, and (2) Ortiz's inculpatory statements were voluntarily made.  We therefore reverse the district court's suppression order and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion.    

  

  

No.  08-0348.   [8-684]   STATE OF IOWA, EX REL. DENGER v. DENGER  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Charles H. Pelton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Miller, J.  (12 pages $6.00) 

  

            This case began as an administrative action to establish Jacob Denger's obligation to provide support for his child, Jaden.  The child's mother contested the child support recovery unit's calculations, and the matter was certified to the district court pursuant to Iowa Code section 252C.4(1) (2007).  Jacob appeals the resulting district court order, claiming the court erred in (1) calculating his child support obligation, because it should have used his actual earnings rather than his earning capacity to determine his support obligation; (2) ordering that he pay accrued support, because the court did not have authority to do so; and (3) establishing his medical support obligation, because the court overreached its statutory authority by requiring him to purchase health insurance at least equivalent to the basic Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan.  OPINION HOLDS:  I.  The district court did not err in using Jacob's earning capacity to determine his child support obligation.  II.  Section 252C.4(4) provides the court the authority to order accrued support.  III.  The court acted within its statutory authority in ordering Jacob to purchase the medical insurance for Jaden.    

  

  

No.  08-0472.   [8-730]   IN RE MARRIAGE OF RANSOM  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Miller, J.  (14 pages $7.00) 

  

            Heather Ransom appeals the physical care provisions of the district court's decree dissolving her marriage to Robert Ransom.  She claims the court erred in granting Robert's request for joint physical care of the parties' child instead of placing responsibility for her physical care with Heather.  OPINION HOLDS:  Three of the four Hansen factors weigh heavily against ordering joint physical care.  We conclude that joint physical care is not in the child's best interest.  It is in the child's best interest that the responsibility for her physical care be placed with Heather.  We remand the case to the district court to enter an order placing physical care of the child with Heather and to determine an appropriate visitation schedule and amount of child support.    

  

  

No.  08-0546.   [8-731]   IN RE MARRIAGE OF GARMAN  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, J.C. Irvin, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Miller, J.  (8 pages $4.00) 

  

            Paul Garman appeals the alimony and property division provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Debra Garman.  OPINION HOLDS:  We modify the trial court's decree by reducing Paul's alimony obligation from $1000 per month to $500 per month, affirm the trial court's property division, and award Debra $500 in appellate attorney fees.    

  

  

No.  08-0233.   [8-783]   STATE v. GYLES  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joel D. Novak, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Miller, J.  (6 pages $3.00) 

  

            Sean Michael Gyles appeals his convictions for conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine.  He contends there was insufficient evidence that he participated in a conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  OPINION HOLDS:  I.  There is substantial evidence from which a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Gyles conspired to deliver methamphetamine.  II.  We preserve Gyles's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for a possible postconviction proceeding.    

  

  

No.  08-0381.   [8-789]   IN RE MARRIAGE OF NIELSEN  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, David R. Danilson, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.  Opinion by Eisenhauer, J.  (10 pages $5.00) 

  

Peggy Nielsen appeals from the district court's ruling on Randall Nielsen's child support modification application.  OPINION HOLDS:  Based on our de novo review, the record does not support using Peggy's earning capacity when calculating child support.  On remand, the court should calculate child support using Peggy's actual earnings and a five-year average of Randall's earnings.  The doctrine of waiver by estoppel bars Randall's request for reimbursement of uncovered medical expenses.  Equity requires Randall to pay one-half of Peggy's trial attorney fees.    

  

  

No.  08-0206.   [8-834]   IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF DEAL-BURCH  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Sackett, C.J.  (8 pages $4.00) 

  

Grandparents appeal the district court's order rescinding their appointment as temporary guardians of their granddaughter and dismissing their petition for permanent guardianship on the ground the court did not have jurisdiction.  The child, born in Georgia in 2004, lived with her mother in Iowa most of her life.  The child's father lives in Georgia.  The mother died in December 2007, and the maternal grandparents filed a petition in an Iowa court seeking to be appointed as temporary and permanent guardians for the child, and the district court granted them temporary guardianship.  The father sought to dismiss the petition and terminate the guardianship on the ground the court lacked jurisdiction.  The father argued under In re Skinner's Guardianship, 230 Iowa 1016, 300 N.W. 1 (1941), upon the mother's death, the child's domicile became that of the father.  The district court agreed and terminated the guardianship finding it had no jurisdiction over the child.  The grandparents appeal.  OPINION HOLDS:  Though the holding in Skinner has not been overruled, Iowa Code section 598B.201(1) of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act now exclusively governs jurisdictional issues in child custody proceedings, including those concerning guardianship.  Under sections 598B.102(7) and 598B.201(1)(a), the Iowa court has jurisdiction to determine guardianship of the child since the child lived with a parent in Iowa for at least six consecutive months immediately prior to the commencement of the guardianship proceedings.  Pursuant to section 598B.207, if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum, it may decline jurisdiction, stay the proceedings, and grant other necessary relief upon condition that the proceeding be promptly commenced in a more appropriate forum.      

  

  

No.  08-0815.   [8-895]   COPPLE v. IOWA DEP'T OF TRANSP.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Annette J. Scieszinski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Sackett, C.J.  (8 pages $4.00) 

  

Petitioner-appellant, Gregg Allen Copple (Copple), appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review that affirmed the Department of Transportation's revocation of Copple's driver's license.  Copple contends there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe he had operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  He contends since reasonable grounds were lacking, the officer could not invoke implied consent under Iowa Code section 321J.6 (2007).  OPINION HOLDS:  Substantial evidence, including Copple's bloodshot watery eyes and unsteadiness, along with smelling of alcohol and witness testimony that Copple had just driven to the scene, supports the finding that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Copple had operated a vehicle while intoxicated.  Copple bore the burden to prove reasonable grounds did not exist and he failed to provide any evidence to contradict the circumstances supporting the agency's finding.    

  

  

No. 07-0832.   [8-414]   STATE v. COLE 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil, District Associate Judge, and Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Huitink, P.J.  (10 pages $5.00) 

  

            Anthony Cole appeals from judgment entered upon his convictions for attempted murder, assault, willful injury causing serious injury, two counts of reckless use of a firearm causing serious injury, and felon in possession of a firearm.  He contends the trial court erred:  (1) in denying the defendant's motion for a mental health expert of his choosing; (2) in granting the Waterloo Courier's motion to quash the testimony of a reporter and otherwise presenting evidence of a prosecutor's characterization in a different trial of the defendant as a "hunted man"; (3) in denying his motion for mistrial when a witness made statements contrary to an in limine ruling; and (4) in failing to recuse itself.  He also argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. OPINION HOLDS:  I.  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a mental health expert of his choosing.  II.  The trial court did not err in granting the Waterloo Courier's motion to quash the testimony of a reporter and otherwise presenting evidence of a prosecutor's characterization in a different trial of the defendant as a "hunted man."  III.  The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial when a witness made statements contrary to an in limine ruling.  IV.  The trial court did not err in refusing to recuse itself.  V.  There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain his convictions. 

  

  

No. 07-2014.   [8-823]   THOMPSON v. VANHOFWEGEN 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, John P. Duffy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.  Opinion by Mahan, J.  (8 pages $4.00) 

  

            Gretchen Thompson appeals from the Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.944 dismissal of her dental malpractice claim, contending the district court erred in refusing to reinstate the case following dismissal and in failing to grant her motion to recuse.  OPINION HOLDS:  The case was dismissed by operation of law on January 1, 2007.  Thompson failed to establish that dismissal was a result of oversight, mistake, or other reasonable cause and the case was not therefore subject to mandatory reinstatement.  We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no abuse of the court's discretion in refusing to reinstate this case.  Nor did the district court err in refusing to recuse.    

  

  

No. 07-1993.   [8-670]   IN RE MARRIAGE OF ZUBROD 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Denver D. Dillard, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (9 pages $4.50) 

  

            Joan Zubrod appeals the physical care provisions of the district court's decree dissolving her marriage, contending the court erred in not placing primary physical care of the parties' daughter with her and instead granting the father's request for joint physical care.  OPINION HOLDS:  After reviewing all of the evidence and applying the appropriate factors, we find the district court properly awarded joint physical care in this case.  Accordingly, we deny Joan's request for physical care and affirm the district court's award of joint physical care. 

No. 07-1493.   [8-815]   KENDALL v. STATE 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Douglas R. Russell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (9 pages $4.50) 

  

            Edward Kendall pled guilty to attempted murder, willful injury, first-degree burglary, and second-degree theft.  He filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming he received ineffective assistance because his trial counsel did not request a competency hearing prior to the plea proceeding.  The district court denied his request for postconviction relief, and he appeals.  OPINION HOLDS:  I.  Kendall claims the district court erred by not ruling on an issue he raised in his pro se brief.  Kendall did not file a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), and this issue has not been preserved.  II.  Kendall claims he received ineffective assistance because his postconviction counsel did not adequately raise the claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing.  A challenge based on a failure to have a competency hearing should be raised by a motion in arrest of judgment.  Kendall did not file such a motion, and on appeal does not set forth any reason for failing to file the motion.  Even if the issue had been preserved, we determine Kendall has not shown he was prejudiced.  The evidence does not show Kendall would have been declared incompetent.  III.  Kendall raised several issues in a pro se brief.  Either we have already addressed these issues, or they have not been preserved. 

  

  

No. 07-2043.   [8-825]   STATE v. BERG 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John D. Ackerman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages $3.00) 

  

            Terry Leland Berg Jr. appeals from his conviction and sentences, contending his counsel was ineffective in handling his guilty pleas.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because we find no reasonable probability Berg would have rejected the plea agreement and insisted on going to trial if he had been informed that the court had the discretion to waive the mandatory minimum sentence, we affirm. 

  

  

No. 08-0854.   [8-848]   STATE v. WATERS 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D. McKenrick and Mark J. Smith, Judges.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (5 pages $2.50) 

  

            Norman Waters Jr. appeals from his conviction, judgment, and sentence for a drug tax stamp violation and driving under suspension, contending the district court abused its discretion in considering only one factor in its sentencing decision and the sentence imposed for driving while suspended was illegal and void.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because we find no basis for Waters's assertion the district court only considered one factor in sentencing him, but find the court imposed an illegal sentence in sentencing Waters to an indeterminate term for driving while suspended, a serious misdemeanor, we affirm Waters's sentence for the drug tax stamp violation, vacate the driving under suspension sentence as void, and remand for resentencing on the driving under suspension conviction. 

  

  

No. 08-0343.   [8-881]   COYLE v. KUJACZYNSKI 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Marsha Bergan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (11 pages $5.50) 

  

            Patricia D. Kujaczynski appeals from the district court's decree directing the partition of her homestead by sale and the equal division of its sale proceeds with her joint tenant.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because we conclude the district court did not err in determining Kujaczynski's homestead interest in the property did not preclude the involuntary partition sale of the property, and that the district court did not err in ordering that the sale proceeds be divided equally between the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

  

   Return to Top

  Supreme Court   Court of Appeals   District Courts   News Service   Online Court Services   Public Information   Jury Service   Representing Yourself   Court Rules and Forms   Professional Regulation   Administration   Reports   RFPs
    Career Opportunities   -    State of Iowa   -    Privacy Policy   -    Site Tools and Accessibility   -    Contact Us
   Copyright © 2008 Iowa Judicial Branch