Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-0942
View Summary for Case No. 18-0942
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Chad A. Kepros, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (10 pages)
Deloris Grace Young, beneficiary of her son William’s estate, challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of two appraisal companies on her negligent-misrepresentation claims. OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the district court’s conclusion there was no genuine issue of material fact and Grace failed, as a matter of law, to prove justifiable reliance, we affirm.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1031
View Summary for Case No. 18-1031
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor and Joel W. Barrows, Judges. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Carr, S.J. Tabor, J., takes no part. Opinion by Vogel, C.J. (4 pages)
Robert Brown pled guilty to operating while intoxicated, third offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(c) (2017). He now appeals, asserting his counsel was ineffective for allowing the district court to accept his guilty plea without a factual basis. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm his conviction and conclude counsel was not ineffective because there was a factual basis for Brown’s guilty plea.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1303
View Summary for Case No. 18-1303
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert E. Sosalla and Lars G. Anderson, Judges. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Bower, J. (3 pages)
Johnny Tibnol appeals his conviction for incest, claiming the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison. OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the judgment and sentence.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1391
View Summary for Case No. 18-1391
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Terry R. Rickers, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (3 pages)
Larry Edgren entered an Alford plea to the charge of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. On appeal, he maintains trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. OPINION HOLDS: Because the record is inadequate for us to decide Edgren’s claims of ineffective assistance, we preserve them for postconviction-relief proceedings.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1513
View Summary for Case No. 18-1513
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, J. (4 pages)
The University of Iowa, Board of Regents, and State of Iowa appeal from the district court order granting Modern Piping, Inc.’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. OPINION HOLDS: The use of the word “shall” in the arbitration clause regarding disputes submitted to the design professional indicates arbitration is mandatory. Because Modern Piping directed the disputes at issue to the design professional, we affirm the order confirming the arbitration award.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2078
View Summary for Case No. 18-2078
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J. Opinion by Blane, S.J. (9 pages)
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, claiming the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence the statutory requirements for termination. OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the statutory requirements for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) )2018), termination is in the best interest of the child, and that the bond with the child was not so strong as to defeat termination. We affirm.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2119
View Summary for Case No. 18-2119
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Bower, J. (6 pages)
A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence supports the termination and termination is in the children’s best interests.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2180
View Summary for Case No. 18-2180
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, C.J. (10 pages)
The mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child. Both parents raise various arguments, including the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist, the district court should have granted a six-month extension, termination was not in the best interests of the child, and termination was precluded by permissive factors. Alternatively, the parents claim the district court should have established a guardianship. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the State proved by clear and convincing evidence the grounds for termination exist, additional time would not extinguish the need for removal, termination is in the best interests of the child, and nothing in the record precludes termination. Furthermore, we find the district court appropriately rejected a guardianship.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2227
View Summary for Case No. 18-2227
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, J. (4 pages)
A mother appeals the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (g) (2018), arguing termination was not warranted because the child could have been returned to her care. OPINION HOLDS: Because we conclude the child could not be safely returned home at the time of the termination hearing, we affirm.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2245
View Summary for Case No. 18-2245
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Charles Borth, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Tabor, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Danilson, S.J. (6 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights, contending the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the child, grounds for termination do not exist, and termination is not in the child’s best interests. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we discern no reason to disagree with the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions. We affirm.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 19-0003
View Summary for Case No. 19-0003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, J. (7 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a one-year-old child. OPINION HOLDS: The father’s sole contention is that it was not in the child’s best interests to terminate his parental rights. The father’s lack of progress in addressing and controlling his anger leads us to conclude it is in the child’s best interests to terminate his parental rights and seek a permanent home for the child. We affirm.
Filed Apr 03, 2019
View Opinion No. 19-0090
View Summary for Case No. 19-0090
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (6 pages)
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, born in April 2017. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2018). The mother maintains the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and a permissive factor weighs against termination. Alternatively, she requests a six-month extension to continue working toward reunification with her children. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the juvenile court should have granted the mother’s request for a six-month extension to continue working toward reunification, we do not address any of the mother’s other claims. We reverse the termination of the mother’s parental rights and remand for implementation of a six-month extension.