July 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Don E. Courtney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (10 pages)

            Barbara Brechler appeals from the district court’s summary judgment rulings overruling her motion and sustaining the motion of Angela Chapman and Kristine Ford, her deceased husband Carl’s daughters.  OPINION HOLDS: First, we find Barbara was a proper party to the proceeding because Barbara’s right to be Carl’s designated beneficiary of his retirement account was in dispute.  Second, we agree with the district court that, under the terms of Carl and his ex-wife’s 2003 dissolution decree, to which Carl agreed, Carl’s daughters were to be named beneficiaries of the retirement account and therefore entitled to whatever funds, if any, remained in the account upon his death.  Carl’s changing the account’s beneficiary designation to Barbara was in violation of that decree.  Consequently, the district court did not error in its summary judgment rulings.  We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling sustaining Carl’s daughters’ motion for summary judgment and overruling Barbara’s motion for summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            K’von Henderson appeals his second-degree robbery sentence, arguing he was entitled to the benefit of an ameliorative sentencing amendment because his conviction occurred after July 1, 2016, the application date set out in the statute.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree Henderson was not convicted of second-degree robbery until the supreme court set aside his first-degree robbery conviction and remanded to the district court for resentencing and entry of judgment on second-degree robbery, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (10 pages)

            Marie Rosonke appeals from the order modifying the decree dissolving her marriage to Brian Rosonke.  OPINION HOLDS: I. We affirm the order modifying the child custody provisions of the parties’ dissolution decree to grant Brian physical care of the parties’ three children based on Marie’s move.  Because a joint physical care arrangement was no longer feasible, the court had to select one parent as physical caretaker, and the evidence supports a finding that placing the children in Brian’s care, in the only community they have called home, is in the children’s best interests.  II. The district court was not required to order the health insurance coverage offered through Marie’s employer as medical support because it does not meet the definition of “accessible” under Iowa Code 252E (2017).  III. Because Marie has not met her burden of showing the judge had a personal bias or prejudice against her that stemmed from an extrajudicial source, we find no abuse of discretion in refusing to recuse himself.  IV. We decline to award Marie appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David May, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Vogel, S.J.  May, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Alexa Anthony appeals from the district court orders granting motions to dismiss from both 60th Street III, L.C. (60th Street) and Professional Property Management, Inc. (PPM).  She argues good cause existed to permit her additional time to serve 60th Street and her amended petition adding PPM as a defendant properly related back to her initial petition.  OPINION HOLDS: Anthony has not shown good cause for failing to timely serve 60th Street and no state of facts exists under the petitions for PPM to know she intended to name them as defendant within the time to bring her claim.  Therefore, we affirm the dismissals of both defendants. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ringgold County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (12 pages)

            Chad Drake appeals the district court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Laura Drake.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we conclude Chad’s farm expenses should have been deducted from his farm income for purposes of calculating his child support obligation, and we find his farm operation’s annual income was $3100.  Additionally, we affirm, as modified, the equalization payment ordered by the district court.  Accordingly, we affirm as modified the district court’s award of the equalization payment to Laura, and we remand the case back to the district court for recalculation of Chad’s child support obligation using the lesser farm-income figure.  We affirm the decree in all other respects.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            Anthony Shellito appeals from the district court order modifying the decree governing custody, visitation, and support of the child he shares with Morgan Kaiser.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Anthony has failed to meet his burden of showing a superior ability to minister to the child’s needs, we decline to modify the physical care provisions of the decree.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (9 pages)

            Victoria Dugan appeals the child custody and support provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to James Dugan.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The record supports the finding that granting James physical care of the parties’ six children serves the children’s best interests.  We also affirm the visitation provisions of the dissolution decree.  II. Because it is necessary to impute income to Victoria to do justice between the parties, we affirm district court’s child support calculation.  III. We decline to award Victoria spousal support on the record before us.  IV. We decline to award Victoria appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County, Ann M. Gales, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (20 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (4 pages)

            The father appeals a dispositional order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding, challenging the court’s denial of his request for modification of placement and placing the child with the mother.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review and in consideration of the best interests of the child, we conclude the court’s determination that placement with the mother is the least restrictive alternative is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  We affirm the dispositional order. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination was proper under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interest.  We affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established the grounds for termination, and we find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests even though each child is doing well in his and her father’s care.  Under the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to apply any of the permissive factors set out in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2018), nor is additional time under section 232.104(2)(b) justified.  Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, born in 2014.  He contends the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the statutory grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, and argues termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court order terminating the father’s parental rights.