November 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            Steven Schmitz appeals the property distribution in the decree dissolving his marriage to Paula Schmitz.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the record fully supports the district court’s findings in support of the $40,000 equalization payment from Steven to Paula.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Martha L. Mertz, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J. and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            A stepfather appeals the district court order granting a domestic abuse protective order in favor of his minor stepson.  OPINION HOLDS: The stepson does not meet the statutory definition of “family or household member” to qualify for a domestic abuse protective order against his stepfather.  The father’s motion to dismiss should have been granted.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Chris Foy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (15 pages)

            Kayla Johnson appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to Bradley Johnson (Brad).  She argues the court erred in placing their three children in Brad’s physical care instead of in the parties’ shared care.  In the alternative, she argues the amount of visitation she was awarded is inadequate.  Brad requests an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s physical care decision, modify the visitation schedule, and remand on the issue of an award of appellate attorney fees in favor of Brad.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (6 pages)

           Joseph McGraw appeals from his sentence following a conviction of operating while intoxicated.  He argues the court abused its discretion by erroneously believing it had none when it imposed a $1250 fine that could have been suspended after the State’s prosecutor stated it could not be suspended.  OPINION HOLDS: As McGraw was unable to point to a moment in the record where the court intimated it had no discretion to suspend the fee, we presume it knew it had the choice to suspend it and chose not to.  We affirm the sentence. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON CROSS-APPEAL AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (18 pages)

            Thomas Alber appeals the decree dissolving his marriage to Cassandra Alber.  He contends the property division was inequitable, the spousal support was too low, the child support was too high, and the award of attorney fees fell short.  Cassandra cross-appeals arguing the property division was inequitable to her and the spousal support award should be reduced or eliminated.  OPINION HOLDS: Persuaded by Cassandra’s argument on spousal support, we modify the decree to reduce the amount of the award for three reasons.  First, Thomas will be able to draw additional funds from social security upon his retirement.  Second, he did not contribute to Cassandra’s career advancement.  And third, in the words of In re Marriage of Mann, Thomas has been “both economically underemployed and domestically underemployed.”  See 943 N.W.2d 15, 22 (Iowa 2020).  We affirm the other provisions of the decree and remand for recalculation of Thomas’s child support payment. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Roger L. Sailer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (5 pages)

                Tabora Baker appeals the ruling on competing petitions to modify the decree dissolving his marriage to Michelle Baker.  He argues the court erred in modifying the decree to allow him only supervised visitation.  OPINION HOLDS: The changes cited by the district court are sufficient for modification of visitation and disallowing Tabora unsupervised visitation is in the children’s best interests as posing physical and emotional harms.  We affirm the district court’s decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O'Brien County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED AND REMANDED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (14 pages)

            In a dissolution-of-marriage action, a wife appeals the district court’s property division and spousal support awards.  On cross-appeal, the husband appeals the spousal support award and denial of trial attorney fees.  He also seeks appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS:  The unequal property division was equitable in light of the conservative spousal support award.  The spousal support award was reasonable in light of the parties’ circumstances.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the husband his request for trial attorney fees.  Husband is entitled to twenty-five percent of his appellate attorney fees, and accordingly the case is remanded to determine the amount.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (4 pages)

           Gregory Trosin appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.  He argues the district court abused its discretion by considering only the nature of the offense in refusing to grant a deferred judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court properly weighed other pertinent factors, we affirm Trosin’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Tayler Garland appeals from an order granting physical care of her child, A.D., to the father, Brandon Dunn.  Taylor asks for either a joint care arrangement or that she be given physical care, and she requests the ordered child support be adjusted accordingly.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the distance between Tayler’s and Brandon’s homes, a shared-care arrangement is untenable.  Brandon’s long-term plans for A.D., particularly for the child’s education, make him the better custodian of A.D.’s care.  With no modification made to the care arrangement, we do not change the child-support order. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Terry Rickers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Joe Vrban appeals the summary disposition of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the entry of summary disposition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            Patrick Mullen appeals the physical care determination and property division portions of his dissolution decree, claiming the district court failed to do equity.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both issues because the property division is equitable and the physical care arrangement is in the best interests of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (10 pages)

            A father and mother separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to a child.  The father contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) the State failed to “provide[] appropriate reasonable efforts due to [his] intellectual disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act”; (3) termination was not in the child’s best interests; and (4) the district court should have granted him a six-month extension.  The mother contends (1) the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court; (2) the State failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts; (3) she should have been afforded a six-month extension to facilitate reunification; and (4) the termination order violated her equal protection and due process rights.  She also suggests termination was not in the child’s best interests and the district court should have invoked an exception to termination based on the parent-child bond.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s decision to terminate parental rights.