May 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

            David Sanchez appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Sanchez has not shown his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and no prejudice resulted from any of his claimed errors because the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.  Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of his PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Margaret Reyes and Susan L. Christensen, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (57 pages)

            The defendants, Scott Clark and RealTuners, LLC, appeal from the $11,000,000 judgment entered against them, arguing they should get a new trial because the sanction entered against them was too harsh, the district court wrongly prevented them from presenting evidence to limit the award of damages, the damages awarded by the jury were improper and excessive, and the court’s award of common law attorney fees was in error.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defendants have not established a reversible error, we see no reason to disturb the jury’s awards, and we decline to consider the argument against the award of attorney fees as it is raised for the first time on appeal, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane and Joseph Seidlin, Judges.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, J.  (20 pages)

            A workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Co. (AOIC), filed a breach-of-contract suit against Raul Ruiz Rosas d/b/a Blue Flame Flooring seeking over $50,000 in more premium payments allegedly due under two workers’ compensation insurance policies issued to Rosas.  Rosas counter-claimed stating that AOIC’s pursuit of additional premiums was in bad faith.  OPINION HOLDS: AOIC failed to provide sufficient evidence for us to find an employer-employee relationship between Rosas and his fellow roofers.  We agree with the district court that “AOIC did not show that Rosas paid remuneration to persons engaged in work that could make AOIC liable to pay workers compensation.”  Thus, AOIC failed to meet its burden to prove Rosas owed any more premium.  We also conclude AOIC’s claim for more premiums is fairly debatable, so there is no basis for a bad-faith claim.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I specially concur.  I agree with the result of the opinion of the majority but write to address AOIC’s position that the issues raised in this appeal are of first impression in Iowa.  AOIC frames these issues as: (1) May an insured submit evidence of independence of its workers after the audit period (policy period plus three years) has closed and is the insurance carrier required, by contract or by law, to consider said evidence?  (2) Do the contracts or the law impose any burden of production or investigation on the insurance carrier during the audit process or does that burden rest solely with the insured?  In answer to the first question, I believe the policy language does not prohibit Rosas from contesting the application of “the proper classifications and rates that lawfully apply to the business and work covered by this policy” as a matter of contract law.  Second, under this contract of insurance, I would find both parties have a duty during the audit process to fairly and fully investigate the risk and how that risk translates to a premium cost.  I would find it is reasonable that an audit requirement presupposes that the exchange of information be mutual with AOIC requesting information and Rosas responding. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (23 pages)

            Dustin Kindig appeals dismissal of his personal injury claims.  OPINION HOLDS: (1) The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting defendants to assert self-defense at trial.  (2) The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting other bad acts evidence.  (3) The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kindig’s mistrial motions.  (4) The district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the owner of a bus.  (5) The district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the unpaid designated driver.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (20 pages)

            Jeffrey Flaherty appeals the spousal support award and other economic provisions of a dissolution decree.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we find it equitable to affirm the amount of the monthly award of spousal support but modify its duration.  We reduce the property settlement owed to Shirley by $1750 to reflect the agreement of the parties.  We affirm the other provisions of the dissolution decree.  We deny Shirley’s request for an award of appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Ricky Brandes appeals the summary dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief as untimely.  Brandes argues he has newly discovered evidence that allows him to bypass the statute of limitations found in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018).  OPINION HOLDS: Brandes cannot bypass the statute of limitations because he provides no explanation as to why he could not present the evidence within the statute of limitations.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tamra Roberts, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (5 pages)

            Heather Mesa challenges the victim restitution she was ordered to pay following her convictions for forgery and second-degree theft.  On appeal, Mesa seeks to have the restitution order vacated on the grounds that the district court’s order requiring her to pay the full amount lacked sufficient evidentiary support.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on the evidence presented, the district court’s order for victim restitution in the amount of $1228.00 is supported by substantial evidence and is within the reasonable range of the evidence.  Therefore, we find no error in the district court’s victim restitution determination.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, David C. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (11 pages)

            Charles Tewes appeals his conviction for eluding a law enforcement vehicle.  He claims the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant his motion for mistrial based on the State’s attempts to introduce evidence of Tewes’s prior bad acts when such evidence had been ruled inadmissible via a pretrial order in limine.  OPINION HOLDS: Lack of prejudice causes us to conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tewes’s mistrial motion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ringgold County, Bradley McCall, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (21 pages)

            Barbara and Edward Tomas appeal the grant of reformation of a warranty deed based on an alleged scrivener’s error.  They argue Midstates lacked standing to seek reformation.  They also contend Midstates did not meet its burden of proving (1) the deed contained a scrivener’s error, (2) the deed did not reflect the true intent of the parties, and (3) the doctrine of merger did not apply.  Finally, they claim the district court should have awarded rent funds in their favor.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no grounds for reversal, we affirm the grant of reformation. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  Partial dissent by Schumacher, J.  (13 pages)

            The trustee of a testamentary trust appeals the district court’s construction of a will, and a beneficiary cross-appeals from the denial of a motion to remove the trustee.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s resolution of the petition to construe the will, and we affirm the court’s denial of the motion to remove the trustee.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur with the majority as to all issues affirmed on appeal with the exception of the issue raised on cross-appeal concerning the removal of Steven as trustee.  The evidence of Steven’s use of trust funds to pay expenses unrelated to the beneficiaries and self-dealing rises to a material breach.  The best interests of the trust and other beneficiaries cannot be safeguarded by leaving Steven in charge of the assets.  As such, a new trustee should be appointed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (12 pages)

            Michael Olson appeals and Erika Olson cross-appeals from the decree dissolving their marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify Michael’s spousal support obligation to Erika to be $1750.00 per month, continuing at that amount after Michael’s child support obligation ends, and terminating upon the earliest of Erika’s remarriage or the death of either party.  We also modify the apportionment of uncovered medical expenses to reflect the parties’ net incomes.  We reject both parties’ claims the district court abused its discretion in ordering Michael to pay a portion of Erika’s trial attorney fees.  We find Michael should pay seventy percent of Erika’s appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, Don E. Courtney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Terry Schoby challenges his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree.  Schoby asserts he is entitled to a new trial based on a claimed instructional error.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no error in the district court’s instructions to the jury, so we reject Schoby’s request for a new trial on that basis.  As there was no error in the instructions, we likewise reject Schoby’s due process claim based on instructional error.