Filed Jun 29, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0749
View Summary for Case No. 22-0749
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (10 pages)
The father of a teenaged child appeals the juvenile court’s denial of his request to close the child-in-need-of-assistance case, as recommended by the Iowa Department of Human Services—but opposed by the mother. The juvenile court considered the motion to close the case at the permanency hearing held in March 2022, but it denied the motion. The father timely appeals from that order. OPINION HOLDS: Because we do not find much has changed since our earlier decision and agree with the juvenile court that “sustaining the [permanency] goal and planning for ongoing permanency under the unique circumstances of this case requires the court’s aid,” we affirm the juvenile court’s decision.
Filed Jun 29, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0761
View Summary for Case No. 22-0761
No. 22-0761 IN RE P.H.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (5 pages)
The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to C.T. and P.H., born in 2020 and 2021 respectively. The juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights to both children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b) and (h) (2022). The mother purports to challenge both of the statutory grounds, maintains termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests, and asks for additional time to work toward reunification. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 19-1738
View Summary for Case No. 19-1738
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Richard H. Davidson, Judge. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Considered by May, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Danilson, S.J. (3 pages)
Michael Kim appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Archdale Funding, LLC. Kim contends Archdale “lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action.” OPINION HOLDS: Because Kim did not raise the issue of standing before the district court, we will not address it on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, but we remand for the district court to determine the reasonable amount of the appellate attorney fees to be awarded to the appellee.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0302
View Summary for Case No. 21-0302
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, John M. Wright, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher, and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (9 pages)
An applicant appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief (PCR) application. He contends PCR counsel was ineffective in presenting his claims. OPINION HOLDS: We find the applicant is unable to demonstrate prejudice and prejudice should not be assumed under a structural error analysis. Accordingly, we affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0353
View Summary for Case No. 21-0353
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Doyle, S.J. Opinion by Bower, C.J. (6 pages)
Melissa Kappelman appeals the physical care provision of the decree dissolving her marriage with George Kappelman. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0399
View Summary for Case No. 21-0399
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Ian K. Thornhill, Sean W. McPartland, and Kevin McKeever, Judges. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (6 pages)
Daniel Dierks appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense. OPINION HOLDS: The deputy had probable cause to believe Dierks committed a traffic violation when Dierks narrowly missed striking the deputy as he passed. Therefore, we affirm the district court.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0410
View Summary for Case No. 21-0410
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover Grinde, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (14 pages)
Austin Mensen appeals his termination from the Cedar Rapids Police Department, which was upheld by the Cedar Rapids Civil Service Commission (the Commission). He claims the Commission failed to provide sufficient written findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision. He also alleges his termination was arbitrary. OPINION HOLDS: We find that existing law does not require a municipal civil service commission to provide its findings of fact with any level of specificity. Additionally, Mensen did not preserve his claim that termination was arbitrary, and even if he had, termination was not arbitrary. We affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0414
View Summary for Case No. 21-0414
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (12 pages)
Gerald Parker appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery. Parker claims there was insufficient evidence corroborating the testimony of a witness he contends was an accomplice to the crime. He also argues the district court abused its discretion when the court found the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. OPINION HOLDS: We find the witness was not an accomplice and, in any event, there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the witness’s testimony. We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the weight of the evidence supported the verdict. Accordingly, we affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0416
View Summary for Case No. 21-0416
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by May, P.J. (15 pages)
Byron Kuehl appeals following an adverse advance ruling on the admissibility of evidence and a ruling granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. OPINION HOLDS: The district court was correct to find certain emails protected by attorney-client privilege. The district court correctly granted summary judgment.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0455
View Summary for Case No. 21-0455
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas Reidel, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Blane, S.J. Opinion by Blane, S.J. (12 pages)
A son challenges the district court’s grant of declaratory judgment to U.S. Bank, the trustee of his father’s individual retirement account, finding his father left the asset to his mother. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the district court read the clear and unambiguous language of the IRA agreement and beneficiary designation correctly, we affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0498
View Summary for Case No. 21-0498
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Lars Anderson, Judge. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Considered by May, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J. Opinion by Carr, S.J. (11 pages)
Property Holders, Ltd. and Charles Davisson (together Property Holders) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to GreenState Credit Union on its mortgage foreclosure claims. OPINION HOLDS: GreenState’s acceptance of a payment after the debt was accelerated is not a waiver of its right to collect the full amount owed. We determine the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Property Holders to pay trial attorney fees. We remand to the district court for a determination of appellate attorney fees.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0543
View Summary for Case No. 21-0543
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia Moisan, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (5 pages)
Elubur Rodriguez Garcia challenges the constitutionality of part of a recently enacted statute governing restitution and, in the alternative, argues the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $150 in category “B” restitution. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Rogriguez Garcia has not sufficiently developed his separation-of-powers challenge for our review; we decline to consider the merits of the argument. And because we are without anything to review and the district court is presumed to have properly exercised its discretion, we cannot give Rodriguez Garcia the relief he requests for the ordered restitution. We affirm the district court’s determination Rodriguez Garcia has the reasonable ability to pay $150 of category “B” restitution.