September 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Taylor County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (14 pages)

            A former wife, Lisa, appeals the district court’s grant of the former husband, Jonathan’s, petition to modify the custody provisions of their dissolution decree.  The district court order split care, giving Lisa physical care of their older son and Jonathan physical care of the younger son.  Lisa challenges this arrangement and argues both children would do better in her physical care.  OPINION HOLDS:  The court’s modification is in the best interests of the children.  There are strong and compelling reasons here to split custody between both parents.  We affirm the physical care order but remand for the district court to enter an order on appellate attorney fees for Jonathan. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gregory W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 pages)

            Jason Batterman appeals from the district court’s refusal to modify the physical-care placement of his child.  He also challenges the district court’s award of attorney fees to the child’s mother.  OPINION HOLDS: Jason did not demonstrate he could provide the child with superior care.  Accordingly, the district court properly refused to modify the child’s physical-care placement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Brook K. Jacobsen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (3 pages)

            Brenna Folkers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction of child endangerment following a trial to the bench.  She maintains the State did not establish she knowingly acted in a manner that created a substantial risk to her son’s physical, mental, or emotional health or safety.  OPINION HOLDS: Because keeping marijuana and hash oil in the home where a toddler can access it creates a substantial risk to the child’s safety, substantial evidence supports Folkers’s conviction.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel and Henry W. Latham II, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (3 pages)

            Eugene Harris appeals his conviction for neglect of a dependent person.  OPINION HOLDS: When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence supports a finding that Harris was a person having custody of a dependent person.  Because substantial evidence supports Harris’s conviction, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Michael Hecht appeals from the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s denial of permanency and penalty benefits.  Hecht maintains the commissioner erred when he granted the defendants’ untimely application to submit additional evidence.  He argues his substantial rights were prejudiced when the commissioner then relied on the late-submitted evidence to modify the deputy commissioner’s ruling of 30% industrial disability and the assessment of penalty benefits to an award of no permanency or penalty benefits.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court; the commissioner did not err in determining the twenty-day deadline of Iowa Administrative Code rule 876-4.28 could be extended upon a showing of good cause and did not abuse his discretion in finding Highline established good cause for the delay in these circumstances.  We affirm.

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

            James Saluri appeals the district court’s ruling on a postsecondary education subsidy.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court correctly found good cause for the subsidy and properly applied the statutory three-step process to calculate James’s share of the subsidy.  The court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Sandra Saluri attorney fees.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (5 pages)

            An employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appeal from the district court ruling on judicial review affirming the agency’s award of permanent partial disability benefits to an employee.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that a work injury caused a permanent partial disability to the employee, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Timothy O'Grady, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 pages)

            Steve Palmer appeals from a decree dissolving his marriage to Debra Palmer.  He claims the district court did not award him enough spousal support.  OPINION HOLDS: We afford the district court considerable latitude in determining spousal support.  Here, the district court’s award fits well with Steve and Debra’s relative needs and resources.  The district court did not fail to do equity.  We affirm.  And we assess costs of this appeal to Steve.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Bethany J. Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A ward appeals from the district court’s appointment of his parents as co-guardians and co-conservators.  He argues there was insufficient evidence to establish the need for a guardianship or conservatorship.  In the alternative, he argues the court should have established a limited guardianship.  OPINION HOLDS: The ward’s untreated acute paranoid schizophrenia, refusal to acknowledge his mental illness, and refusal to take medication show his decision-making is impaired enough to warrant guardianship and conservatorship.  A limited guardianship is not appropriate here because of the severity of the illness and the ward’s lack of rational engagement with his mental-health condition.  We find no error in the court’s order appointing the parents as guardians and conservators. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            Gary Dickey Jr. appeals from the dismissal of his petition for judicial review by which he sought to challenge a decision of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the district court that Dickey has not demonstrated “a specific and injurious effect” such that he may obtain judicial review of the Board’s ruling under Iowa Code section 17A.19(1), we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Tod Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (10 pages)

            Joshua Thomsen appeals and MaKinzie Nelson cross-appeals the district court’s custody decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court properly determined joint physical care was inappropriate.  We also find the district court properly awarded physical care to MaKinzie.  While we generally agree with the district court’s visitation schedule, we modify the holiday schedule to permit the child to share holidays with Joshua’s girlfriend’s children.  Finally, we decline to grant appellate attorney fees to either party.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Zachary Hindman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (8 pages)

            Richard Magnuson appeals the ruling of the district court approving the guardian and conservator’s annual report and application for authorization to expend conservatorship funds for caregivers.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we dismiss two of Magnuson’s three claims on appeal as moot.  And we find Magnuson’s last claim that the care provided to the ward was “contrary to [the ward’s] prior orders” to lack merit, and we agree with the district court that the guardian and conservator did not breach her fiduciary duties.  Thus, we affirm the court’s rulings in all respects and dismiss the two claims as moot.