August 2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Alan T. Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Jeffery Reinking appeals the district court order quashing the execution against Lori Throndson for unpaid support payments.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the district court appropriately quashed the execution.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, JJ., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (9 pages)

A former spouse appeals a district court decision that modified the amount and duration of alimony to be paid by her ex-husband.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the court’s modification of spousal support from $2000 a month to $500 a month but modify the court’s decision to terminate the spousal support when the receiving spouse turns sixty-two.  We extend the payment of the reduced amount to the date the receiving spouse turns sixty-seven years old, the payor’s death, the payee’s death, or the payee’s remarriage, whichever occurs earlier.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (15 pages)

            A garnishee appeals entry of judgment against it for funds owed to a creditor by a defendant, arguing (1) it was never provided with prior notice that judgment could be entered for the full amount; (2) no judgment should have been entered against it under Iowa Code section 642.13 (2020) because it was neither indebted to the defendant nor in the possession of her property when the notice of garnishment was served; and (3) if judgment in some form was proper, it should have been limited to the amount owed by the garnishee to the defendant.  OPINION HOLDS: The garnishee had sufficient notice and the court had subject matter jurisdiction of the dispute before it.  However, the garnishee was only liable to the creditor for amounts it failed to properly withhold.  We reverse the entry of judgment and remand for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.  The creditor’s request for attorney fees is denied.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Juan Jose Contreras Mendoza appeals his convictions for two counts of second-degree sexual abuse, contending (I) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever the charges for separate trials; (II) the court of appeals should address his attorney’s failure to request a particular jury instruction under a plain-error standard; and (III) the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (13 pages)

                Michael McDonald appeals the denial of his motion to quash a garnishment by A.Y. McDonald Industries, Inc. (A.Y.).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s ruling as to the J. Bruce McDonald Trust; the district court previously ruled in a 2019 proceeding that A.Y. could garnish the funds placed in a subaccount for Michael, and Michael failed to appeal the court’s ruling.  Res judicata precludes him from relitigating the issue now.  As to the Delos L. McDonald Trust, we reverse the district court’s ruling; while funds may have been “distributed” to Michael, he has not actually received them—which is necessary for the creditor to reach them.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (20 pages)

            Brett Sullivan, who was injured in a workplace accident in 2011, sought authorization from West Central Cooperative and Farmland Mutual Insurance Company for a trial of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) to treat chronic back pain.  The employer denied liability, arguing Sullivan’s chronic back pain was not causally related to the 2011 accident and, alternatively, that the SCS trial was not a reasonable and necessary treatment for the pain.  The commissioner concluded the back pain was causally related and the SCS trial was reasonable and necessary.  On rehearing, the commissioner concluded that Sullivan proved the treatment offered by the employer was unreasonable.  The district court affirmed.  Here on appeal, the employer argues there is not substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s ruling that Sullivan’s chronic back pain is causally related to his 2011 work injury or that the SCS trial is reasonable and necessary treatment for the back pain.  The employer also challenges whether the commissioner’s determination that the treatment being provided by the employer was unreasonable constitutes an abuse of discretion or an error at law.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the employer denied liability for Sullivan’s back pain, this case was not heard in an alternate-medical-care proceeding, and the employer does not get the benefit of the deference it would have been afforded if it was.  Insofar as the commissioner and district court concluded Sullivan had to prove that any treatment offered by the employer was unreasonable, the ruling was in error.  However, because we agree with the district court that the commissioner’s rulings Sullivan’s chronic back pain is causally related to the 2011 workplace accident and that the SCS trial is reasonable and necessary treatment are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (3 pages)

            A defendant appeals his sentence following a plea of guilty to operating while intoxicated, third offense, as a habitual offender.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Richter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (4 pages)

            A defendant appeals his sentences, claiming the district court did not provide adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.  OPINION HOLDS:  Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph Seidlin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            Joe Farnum Jr. appeals his sentence imposed by the district court.  He claims the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to incarceration because the court did not sufficiently consider his opportunities for rehabilitation within the community and instead only focused on his likelihood to reoffend.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court considered a multitude of permissible factors when fashioning its sentencing determination, so we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            Sondra Thurman appeals the district court’s decision denying her request to modify the physical care provision of the paternity decree placing the parties’ two children in the physical care of Jeremy Shuey.  OPINION HOLDS: Sondra has failed to show a substantial change in circumstances.  After considering the financial conditions of the parties, we deny Jeremy’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (4 pages)

            A defendant appeals his consecutive sentences contending the court failed to properly weigh the presentence investigation (PSI) report’s recommendation or consider that his three offenses concerned the same circumstances.  OPINION HOLDS: The court is not bound by the PSI report’s recommendation.  The court did consider the report, along with other appropriate factors, and the similar circumstances of the offenses had no bearing the separate and distinct harms inflicted on the victim.  We affirm the consecutive sentences.

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

            A father appeals from an order modifying physical care of his child and placing the child with the mother.  He also challenges the resulting modification of child support.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother established a material and substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change in the child’s physical care.  The mother can provide superior care to the child, so we agree with the district court’s modification of physical care.  Accordingly, the district court was correct to also modify the child support award to reflect the change in physical care.