September 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Blane and Lloyd, S.JJ.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s grant of defendants’ motions for summary judgment on their claims against a bank and bank president for fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with contract. OPINION HOLDS:  Since evidence of the claimed agreement is not admissible under the statute of frauds in either section 535.17 or section 622.32, no reasonable jury could be convinced the alleged agreement is enforceable, and summary judgment was appropriate.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (7 pages)

            Santenio Ackiss appeals his convictions of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury and child endangerment.  Ackiss contends (1) the court’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the court impermissibly imposed court costs on charges for which he was acquitted, and (3) the court failed to make a determination of his ability to pay restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the court’s findings of guilt and convictions for child endangerment resulting in bodily injury and child endangerment.  We vacate the sentences as to apportionment of costs and restitution and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Bradley McCall, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Authorities arrested Jackson on an alleged parole violation.  Pending his parole-violation hearing the district court ordered placement at a state prison instead of a county jail.  While held in prison, Jackson allegedly violated prison rules and was disciplined.  Jackson was later found in violation of his parole conditions and was sentenced to state prison.  Jackson filed an application for postconviction relief raising two claims: (1) the state violated his due process rights by improperly transferring him to a state prison and (2) the state imposed improper disciplinary sanctions while he was awaiting his parole-revocation hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: (1) Because Jackson is now sentenced to state prison, the district court’s ruling that he should be in county jail instead of prison is moot.  And because his claim only affected him, it did not qualify under the public-interest exception for this court to exercise its discretion to review the moot action.  (2) Because the proper vehicle to challenge a prison disciplinary sanction is a petition for writ of certiorari and because Jackson provides no valid ground to justify issuance of the writ, we deny review and dismiss the matter.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (13 pages)

            Erick and Jennifer Skogman appeal the district court’s default judgment order entered in their favor.  They argue the district court erred by (1) dismissing Paula as a defendant for all but the Skogmans’ holdover tenant claim; (2) holding the Skogmans were not entitled to damages for some of their construction costs for renovating; and (3) refusing to award punitive damages to the Skogmans.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court erred by dismissing Paula as a defendant to the Skogmans’ intentional property damage claim, but not by dismissing her from the other claims.  The district court’s damages award is supported by substantial evidence.  The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to award punitive damages.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

                Adnan Sahinovic appeals the summary dismissal of his postconviction-relief application.  The district court dismissed the application based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.  OPINION HOLDS: Sahinovic’s conviction was final in 2011, and the district court did not err in concluding the statute of limitations had expired and his postconviction claim was time barred.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Douglas Dalby appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Julie Dalby.  Douglas maintains the division of marital assets was inequitable and asks us to modify the equalization payment due to him from the amount of $31,331.55 to $112,770.24.  He also asks for an award of appellate attorney fees.  In response, Julie maintains the district court’s division was equitable and asks that we award her appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court’s division of marital assets was inequitable; we modify the equalization payment Julie owes to Douglas to the amount of $100,932.74.  We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I agree with modifying the decree to increase the equalization payment to Douglas, but I would then reduce the equalization payment by the full amount of the basement repair.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            Mathy Construction Company and Zurich American Insurance Company appeal an order to reimburse the cost of an independent medical examination in a workers’ compensation case.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the examination was reimbursable under Iowa Code section 85.39 (2017).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily Dean, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother of four children adjudicated in need of assistance appeals from a permanency review order, claiming the juvenile court erred in ordering a six-month extension and continued removal of the children.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we affirm the permanency order entered by the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, Amy L. Zacharias, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  Special concurrence by Potterfield, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father each appeal the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the mother, we find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of her parental rights, the State made reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child, and termination is in the child’s best interests.  For the father, we find there is sufficient evidence to warrant termination of his parental rights and the juvenile court properly declined to apply any exceptions to termination.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I agree with the majority; in this case, the incarcerated father did not explicitly raise a best-interests claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father has borderline intellectual functioning and cannot demonstrate an ability to care for the child, who has significant medical and cognitive impairments, the State showed she cannot be returned to the father at the present time, satisfying the statutory grounds.  It is in the child’s best interests to terminate the father’s parental rights and free her for adoption.  There is insufficient evidence of a bond to show terminating the relationship would be detrimental to her.  Finally, there is no evidence warranting an extension of time for the father.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to five minor children.  OPINION HOLDS:  We conclude the State established grounds for termination, termination was in the children’s best interests, no exceptions applied to prevent termination, and the Iowa Department of Human Services made reasonable efforts to reunite the parents with the children.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Monty Franklin, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  The juvenile court found he failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with his seven-year-old son.  OPINION HOLDS: Our de novo review reveals inadequate proof that the father failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child.  The father attended almost all the offered visitations, only missing for serious medical events.  During visits he did more than just show up: he engaged with his son, provided meals, clothing, and gifts, and had positive conversations.  He also completed substance-abuse treatment, showing a genuine effort to complete the responsibilities prescribed in the case permanency plan.  The State failed to prove the ground for termination, so we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.