May 2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND MODIFIED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (11 pages)

            Alex Noecker appeals a modification order granting sole legal custody to his child’s mother.  He also contests an award of attorney fees in favor of the mother.  OPINION HOLDS: Modification was in the child’s best interests.  But we reverse the provision delegating discretion over visitation to the child’s mother and modify to deny visitation to Alex. The attorney fee award was within the district court’s discretion.  But because the mother did not file a brief, we deny her request for attorney fees on appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (10 pages)

            Timothy Hall appeals the dismissal of his petition for declaratory judgment, in which he sought to clarify the nature of a prior conviction and establish that he is not barred from possessing a firearm or ammunition.  He contends the district court violated his right to due process by treating the State’s untimely motion to dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings without notice and dismissing his petition.  OPINION HOLDS: It is undisputed in this litigation that Hall admitted in his domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury guilty plea that he pushed his wife—clearly an act of physical force.  As such, he pled guilty to an offense with an element of physical force.  Therefore, Hall’s plea, regardless of his intent, falls under Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(a) (2021), not (b).  Having plead to and been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under section 708.1(2)(a), Hall is not entitled to the declaratory relief he seeks.  The district court committed no error in dismissing Hall’s petition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals an order terminating his parental rights to three children under Iowa Code section 600A.8 (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the petitioners proved the father statutorily abandoned his children by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm termination of his parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (6 pages)

            Jordan and Brian separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their two daughters.  OPINION HOLDS: The State offered clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be safely returned to either parent’s care.  And Jordan’s engagement with treatment came too late to support delaying permanency.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the mother with the child, termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and termination is in the best interests of the child.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Dissent by May, P.J.  (14 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, G.B., born in 2015.  The mother challenges the statutory ground, claims the loss of her rights is not in the child’s best interests, and maintains the parent-child bond is so strong that termination will harm G.B.  Alternatively, she asks for six more months to reunify with G.B.  As it pertains to his parental rights, the father seems to focus on a best-interests argument and a request for more time.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights; we grant each parent a six-month extension.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would not grant either parent additional time to work toward reunification.  Because I think a statutory ground authorizing termination as to both parent is met and termination of both parents’ respective rights is in the child’s best interest, I would affirm the termination of both parents’ rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the grounds for termination and a permissive exception does not preclude termination.  There is no evidence that the mother would be able to resume custody following an additional six months to work towards reunification.  A guardianship is not preferable to termination here.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child, V.B.  OPINION HOLDS: We find an extension of time is not warranted, the mother’s due process challenge was waived, termination is in the child’s best interests, and an exception should not be applied.  Therefore, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to V.B.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor, and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (7 pages)

            Shane appeals the adjudication and continued removal of his three children, contending the State failed to prove they were in imminent danger in his care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record contains clear and convincing evidence that Shane’s inability to regulate his emotions and his assaultive conduct endangered his son, adjudication and continued removal is necessary for the safety of all three children, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher, and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (12 pages)

            In an interlocutory appeal, Dominick Marcott claims the district court should have granted his motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: An officer searched the glove compartment and center console of Marcott’s vehicle, looking for evidence of Marcott’s identity, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration after Marcott refused the officer’s requests.  The State claims the search was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.  The officer did not have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime was in the vehicle, and there was no exigency requiring a search at that time.  We reverse the district court’s decision denying the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda Fangman and David Odekirk, Judges.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.  Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (21 pages)

            Lincoln Savings Bank (the Bank) initiated foreclosure proceedings against Debra Emmert in July 2019.  Debra failed to respond, and the Bank twice asked for entry of default, which the court granted both times.  Eventually, the district court entered judgment against Debra for more than $5,000,000 and foreclosed on a property in Cedar Falls and a property in Coralville.  Debra appealed.  She then filed a motion to set aside the default and, when she did not get the ruling she wanted, a motion to enlarge and reconsider.  The district court again ruled against Debra, and she filed a second appeal.  At the parties’ joint request, Debra’s two appeals were consolidated.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Debra’s first appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction, all rulings that came after December 16, 2020, are nullities; we vacate them.  Limiting our consideration to the issues that arose before Debra’s first appeal, Debra has not shown an error in notice or service that invalidates the foreclosure judgment against her.  We affirm the December 2, 2020 foreclosure and judgment decree.