2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, D.F., born in 2012, and R.W., born in 2017.  The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (l) (2018).  On appeal, the mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination and argues a permissive factor weighs against terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: As the children could not be returned to the mother’s care at the time of the termination hearing and no permissive factor weighs against it, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to D.F. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(f) and to R.W. pursuant to section 232.116(1)(h).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father has not seen the child since February 2017, has unresolved substance-abuse issues, and is incarcerated, terminating his parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  The evidence shows the Iowa Department of Human Services did not fail to consider the child’s placement with the paternal grandmother.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, E.G., who was born in 2006.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2018).  The mother maintains the statutory grounds for termination have not been met as the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her child and the close bond she shares with E.G. precludes termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s reasonable-efforts argument has not been preserved for our review, and no permissive factor weighs against the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS:  The State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2018) because the juvenile court never found the child was physically or sexually abused or neglected.  The State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the father failed to maintain significant and meaningful contact with the child.  The State failed to prove the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) because it failed to show a nexus between the father’s conduct and an appreciable risk of adjudicatory harm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children, who at the time the termination order issued ranged in ages from six years old to two years.  The mother’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f), (h), and (l) (2018).  On appeal, she purports to challenge the statutory grounds, argues the children could be returned to her care in a reasonable time, and maintains termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother failed to challenge any of the elements of section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) and therefore has waived any alleged error committed by the juvenile court.  Because we cannot say she would be able to care for the children after a short extension of time, and because termination is in the best interests of the children, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Deborah Farmer Minot, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2013.  She contends the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the grounds for termination cited by the district court and termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.   Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child arguing the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court and termination was not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (6 pages)

            Nicole appeals the termination of her parental rights in her children.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children.  The district court did not err in denying Nicole an additional six months to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (16 pages)

            The family of Max Morrison (the Morrisons) are plaintiffs in a negligence action against the Grundy County Rural Electric Cooperative (GCREC).  They alleged the GCREC was liable when an airplane carrying Max hit one of their above-ground power lines and crashed, resulting in Max’s death.  A jury found the GCREC was at fault but was not a cause of the crash.  The Morrisons raise numerous grounds of error.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the Morrisons received a favorable verdict finding fault, we do not entertain any allegations of error related to fault.  In addition, because the jury never reached the question of comparative fault, we do not consider any allegations of error related to comparative fault.  We find the Morrisons failed to preserve error on several issues, including on the instruction defining “cause.”  We address on its merits the Morrisons’ claim the court should have ruled as a matter of law that Max’s death fell within the scope of the GCREC’s liability; but we find the Morrisons were not entitled to a directed verdict on that question.  Having disposed of all issues, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (28 pages)

            James Hohenshell appeals a district court order denying his motion for a new trial and upholding a jury award in favor of plaintiffs.  He argues the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial or remittitur because: (1) the verdict was influenced by passion or prejudice, (2) the compensatory damages award was not supported by the evidence, and (3) the punitive damages award was excessive and violates his due process rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of Hohenshell’s motion for a new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Jacob Smith appeals his convictions for theft in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, both as a habitual offender.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence identified Smith as the perpetrator, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Wittig Zrinyi, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J. Concurrence in part and dissent in part by Tabor, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Duane Frick appeals the economic provisions of the district court’s decree dissolving his marriage with Jane Frick.  OPINION HOLDS: We find a discrepancy occurred in the court’s calculations and modify the economic distributions.  We affirm as modified the decree’s spousal support award and life insurance requirement.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent in part from the majority's modification of the property division.  Duane failed to preserve error on the issue of the district court's calculation error.  Although Duane asked the court in his motion to modify, enlarge, or amend, to reconsider the equalization payment, he did not allege an error in arithmetic as he does on appeal.  I would not disturb the equalization payment.