2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (8 pages)

            The City of Garber seeks reversal of the district court decision granting ownership rights of disputed property to Doug and Elizabeth Jaster.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the Jasters have presented clear and convincing evidence the property should be equitably estopped to them.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Randy S. DeGeest, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (5 pages)

            Jonathan Weston appeals following conviction for domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2A(2)(b) (2017).  His challenges are to the sentencing procedure and the sentence imposed.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Weston was allowed his right to allocution and his restitution claim is premature, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            Franklin Harris appeals his conviction for driving while license denied or revoked.  OPINION HOLDS: Harris failed to raise the issue of inconsistent verdicts to the district court and has therefore failed to preserve error for our review.  Regardless, Harris has failed to show the jury’s verdicts are inconsistent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Richard Whitford appeals an order granting Deborah Whitford’s motion to dismiss Richard’s petition to modify the parties’ 2006 divorce decree as well as her request for attorney fees, claiming the court lacked authority to make its ruling and that it erred in its findings and consideration of factual matters.  OPINION HOLDS: We discern no error in the court’s conclusion.  We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of sanctions.  We decline Deborah’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (18 pages)

            A taxpayer challenges orders by the Iowa Department of Revenue denying him relief under the Iowa Tax Amnesty Act of 2007 and disallowing business losses claimed in four tax years.  OPINION HOLDS: First, substantial evidence supports the finding the taxpayer did not file a 2002 tax return as he was required to do to be eligible for the tax amnesty.  Second, substantial evidence supports disallowing each of the business losses he claimed related to his railroad consulting, condominium rental, and farmland rental business.  Therefore, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            Jose Avalos Covarrubias appeals his conviction for robbery in the second degree, under Iowa Code section 711.3 (2017).  He contends the State failed to prove he specifically intended to cause a bodily injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Avalos Covarrubias misconstrues the elements of robbery in the second degree: the State did not need to show a specific intent to cause bodily injury, only that Avalos Covarrubias had the specific intent to commit an assault and his act caused bodily injury.  On our review of the evidence, the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Johnathan Erdman appeals from the district court’s order regarding physical care of A.E., his child with Elizabeth Vopava, now known as Elizabeth Mumford.  He argues the district court should not have continued A.E.’s physical care with Elizabeth.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we decline to interfere with the district court’s findings and ruling.   We also deny Elizabeth’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            LaVon Brockman appeals the dismissal of her equitable action to abate a private nuisance and establish a drainage easement.  She contends the district court erred in concluding a circumstance on adjoining land owned by Glen and Lori Ruby does not amount to a nuisance and the court failed to consider the easement issue.  Both parties request an award of appellate attorney fees.  The Rubys request an additional award of expert-witness fees incurred in the district court proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Brockman’s petition, deny the parties’ requests for appellate attorney fees, and deny the Rubys’ request for additional expert-witness fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS APPEAL.  Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (9 pages)

            Parties to a divorce decree appeal and cross-appeal from the property distribution, spousal support, custody, visitation, and attorney-fee provisions of the decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the dissolution decree to (1) provide that Orvella shall pay Rocksvold $55,580 as a cash property settlement; (2) grant Rocksvold’s reasonable request for rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $1500 per month for three years; and (3) provide that Orvella shall pay the entirety of Rocksvold’s trial attorney-fee bill, totaling $16,214.22.  We affirm the district court’s decision to grant Rocksvold physical care of the child and decline to award Orvella extraordinary visitation rights.  We grant Rocksvold’s request for appellate attorney fees and order Orvella to pay her $3500 toward the obligation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae E. Hoover-Grinde, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (4 pages)

            Dewey Goins appeals from the denial of his application to modify support for his former spouse Mary (known as “Pat”) Goins.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the trial court that modification of Dewey’s support obligation is not warranted.  Rather, modifying the spousal support would do a positive injustice to Pat.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (5 pages)

            Katrina Eubanks appeals her convictions for neglect of a dependent person and dependent-adult abuse resulting in injury.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eubanks’s post-plea motion to substitute counsel. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  (12 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Both parents argue the grounds for termination were not met because the children could have been returned at the time of the termination hearing, they were not provided reasonable efforts toward reunification, and the district court should have dismissed the termination petition due to the misconduct of an Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) witness.  The mother additionally argues termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2017) by clear and convincing evidence, DHS provided reasonable efforts toward reunification, termination is in the children’s best interests, and the district court correctly found it did not rely on false or fraudulent statements at the termination hearing, we affirm the district court’s order terminating the parental rights of both parents.