2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    A former husband appeals the decree dissolving his marriage.  He alleges the district court abused its discretion in disallowing relevant evidence, incorrectly waived mediation, relied on false testimony of the former wife, unfairly ordered temporary spousal support, and abused its discretion during trial.  OPINION HOLDS: While we are unable to reach several of these claims due to lack of error preservation or waiver, we address those we can and find no grounds to reverse or modify the district court’s decree.  We affirm.  
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

            WOHLOA, Inc. appeals after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Anchor Bay II Owner’s Association.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find summary judgment was proper on one issue and WOHLOA failed to preserve error on another, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Blake H. Norman and DeDra Schroeder, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

Randy Nibaur appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1)(b)(2)(d) (2021).  On appeal, he argues his conviction should be reversed because (1) there exists no factual basis for his guilty plea; and (2) he did not knowingly plead guilty.  Additionally, he argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we do not have authority to reach the merits of Nibaur’s challenges to his guilty plea, we affirm his conviction.  Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing decision. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, David Faith, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (22 pages)

    In this consolidated appeal, Nedzad and Aisa Malic challenge the district court’s orders granting judgment in favor of homeowners Senahid and Hajreta Becirovic on the Becirovics’ claims of breach of oral contract and violation of the consumer protection code and awarding attorney fees and costs.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. 
 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (11 pages)

    Chad Ragan appeals the custody order awarding primary physical care of his seven-year-old son, T.R., to the child’s mother.  He argues that the district court erred in not awarding joint physical care.  As a fallback position, he contends that his visitation should be increased.  OPINION HOLDS: In our de novo review, we agree with the district court’s assessment that it is in T.R.’s best interests to have a more predictable schedule than he has navigated under his parents’ shared-care arrangement.  But because the parents agree that T.R. would benefit from more time with his father, we modify the custody order to expand Ragan’s parenting time.  
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF CORRECTED SENTENCE.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (6 pages)

            A defendant appeals the surcharge and fine imposed on his conviction for lascivious acts with a child.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that the $90 surcharge is an illegal sentence in violation of the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions and remand for entry of a corrected sentence.  The $1025 fine imposed is within the statutory limits of the statute in effect at the commission of the crime, therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals termination of his parental rights to three children.  OPINIONS HOLDS: Under controlling case law, we have appellate jurisdiction over the untimely petition on appeal.  We find sufficient evidence supporting the statutory elements of a ground for termination and the other claims sprinkled in the father’s petition are waived.  We affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (13 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two-year-old son.  She contends the juvenile court erred in finding that the State proved the statutory grounds for termination, termination is in the child’s best interests, a statutory exception does not apply, an extension is unwarranted, and the State made reasonable efforts to reunite them.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we find that despite substantial progress and demonstrated sobriety, the mother continues to display poor judgment when it comes to the company she keeps.  She also continues to mislead service providers and the court about her contact with people who pose a risk of domestic violence and drug use.  So despite two and half years of services, the mother is unable to care for her son safely.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights with respect to her daughter, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (l) (2024).  She argues (1) there was not clear and convincing evidence supporting the grounds for termination, (2) the court improperly declined to apply an exception to avoid termination, and (3) she should have been granted additional time to work towards reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the child.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, arguing statutory grounds, best interests, and reasonable efforts claims.  She also asks for an extension.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing these four claims, we find no basis for relief.  Instead, clear and convincing evidence shows that the grip of the mother’s methamphetamine addiction prevents safe parenting.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests and an extension of time on these facts is unwarranted.  And we decline to apply either of the permissive exceptions urged by the mother to preclude termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl E. Traum, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of parental rights of her two sons.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother challenges only one of the four independent statutory grounds for termination relied on by the juvenile court, so we could not reverse on that basis and do not reach the merits of her argument.  Her challenge to the juvenile court’s best-interests determination fails on the merits.  The mother’s failure to follow through on substance-use training, the need for permanency in the sons’ life, and the positive environment of the sons’ foster care home all show that termination is in the best interests of the sons.