April 2023 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Rustin T. Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (4 pages)

            Lindaman raises several constitutional challenges to the sexual offender treatment program and asserts his actual innocence.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because Lindaman’s application is time-barred by the three-year statutory limit imposed by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2021), we affirm the district court’s denial of Lindaman’s PCR application. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County, Elisabeth Reynoldson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (9 pages)

            Wayne Michael Lautenbach appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss, in which he argued the court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment that he argues did not comply with Iowa Code section 626A.2(1) (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court rightly found Lautenbach was really challenging venue, not subject matter jurisdiction, and had waived that complaint, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Tod Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Special Concurrence by Badding, J. (12 pages)

            Troy Bainbridge appeals several provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Amanda Bainbridge.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the district court was correct in its valuation of Troy’s business, its approximation of Troy’s yearly income, and its spousal support award to Amanda.  We also decline to order any appellate attorney fees.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the result reached here, due to the deference afforded to the district court by our case law.  However, under the same multifactored statutory approach, I would have reached a different conclusion, especially considering Amanda’s ability to support herself at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Rustin T. Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (18 pages)

            Sarah Enke appeals the denial of her request to modify physical care and the grant of Jason Enke’s request for a postsecondary education subsidy.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse in the district court’s discretion in limiting the testimony of Sarah’s witness who was not designated an expert.  Because we find there was not a substantial change in circumstances and joint physical care would not be in the children’s best interests, we affirm the district court’s modification order maintaining physical care of the two minor children with Jason.  We also affirm the modification requiring a postsecondary education subsidy obligation for Sarah, but modify the order to require a postsecondary education subsidy for Jason.  We decline to award Jason appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (10 pages)

            Tyrone Jones appeals his indeterminate fifteen-year sentence for three drug-related convictions raising three issues.  He argues that the district court failed to give reasons for his consecutive sentence.  He also claims the court’s written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement.  And he asserts that the district court considered unproven conduct and impermissible sentencing factors.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State concedes the first two issues and the district court considered inappropriate matters in sentencing Jones, we reverse and remand for sentencing before a different judge.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tom Rediel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (4 pages)

            Charles Whittinghill appeals his sentence, contending the district court abused its discretion by imposing incarceration.  OPINION HOLDS: We determine the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Whittinghill to a period of incarceration. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  Dissent by Greer, J. (10 pages)

            This appeal concerns the narrow question of error preservation in the administrative law context.  Shane Schoenberger contends the district court erred in finding he did not preserve error on the issue of whether he was entitled to industrial disability benefits for a combined shoulder and arm injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review of the proceedings before the Iowa Division of Workers’ Compensation, we find the issue was preserved.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the agency for adjudication on the merits of this issue.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Given our deference to the agency, I would affirm the commissioner’s ruling over the compensation for the work-related shoulder injury.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (8 pages)

            Dylan Berns challenges the court order giving Rachel Wagner physical care of the parties’ minor child; he argues the court should have ordered the parents to share joint physical care.  In the alternative, he requests more visitation than the district court gave him.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that joint physical care is not the best arrangement for the child, and we affirm the visitation schedule. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON THE MOTHER’S APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON GUARDIAN AD LITEM’S APPEAL AND STATE’S APPEAL.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (20 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  Both the State and guardian ad litem appeal the court’s order denying the petition to terminate the father’s rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We determine the State established a ground for termination of the mother’s parental rights, termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest, and an exception contained in Iowa Code section 232.116(3) (2022) should not be applied to preclude the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We also conclude the State established a ground for termination of the father’s parental rights, termination of the father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest, and an exception should not be applied to preclude termination of the father’s parental rights.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We reverse and remand for entry of an order terminating the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) concerning the State’s and guardian ad litem’s appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Special Concurrence by Buller, J. (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending her rights should not have been terminated because she was not the reason for the underlying child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding, reasonable efforts at reunification were not made, and a guardianship should have been established instead of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I would summarily affirm the termination of parental rights or dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (17 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of each parent’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (5 pages)

            The biological father of K.D. (born in 2014) and the biological father of A.D. (born in 2017) separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  K.D.’s father argues the statutory ground was not proved, he should get additional time to work toward reunification, and the parent-child bond precludes termination.  A.D.’s father challenges the statutory ground and argues he should get more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of each father’s parental rights.