2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  Dissent by Ahlers, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Zachary Chelf appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea, alleging the State violated the plea agreement by stating he is a “good fit” for a residential correctional facility for supervised probation.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State did not breach the plea agreement and affirm.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would conclude the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation for the defendant to be placed on supervised probation at a residential correctional facility went beyond the plea agreement’s joint sentencing recommendation that the defendant be placed on supervised probation.  As a result, I believe the prosecutor violated the spirit of the plea agreement and resentencing before a different judge is necessary.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., Tabor, Schumacher, Ahlers, Badding, Chicchelly, Buller, and Langholz, JJ, but decided by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, Ahlers, Badding, Chicchelly, Buller, and Langholz, JJ, and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            MidAmerican Energy Company appeals a dismissal of its action and claims Iowa Code chapter 480 (2022) provides a private cause of action.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude chapter 480 does not provide for a private cause of action and the district court properly granted the motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL, AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            Elias Nunez appeals, and Chelsey Nunez cross-appeals, the decree dissolving their marriage, including the provisions dividing their property and setting Elias’s visitation schedule.  Elias also appeals the district court’s refusal to hold Chelsey in contempt for violating a temporary order to make vehicle loan and insurance payments.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s division of their Indianola acreage’s proceeds on both the appeal and cross-appeal.  The decree appropriately permitted the parties to file separate tax returns for 2022 and equitably allocated credits and deductions.  But we agree with Elias that the decree went too far in awarding Chelsey survivorship rights in Elias’s IPERS pension and thus modify the decree to remove this provision and remand for the district court to issue a new QDRO.  The visitation schedule is in the children’s best interest.  We see no gross abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to hold Chelsey in contempt.  And we award Chelsey $3000 in appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Richter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (5 pages)

            A criminal defendant challenges his discretionary sentence, urging his criminal history was not part of the record.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm because the criminal history was part of the record, and the defendant did not object to it.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Fae Hoover Grinde, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Dr. Mark Irland appeals the granting of summary judgment and the award of damages to the defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dr. Irland waived all claims arising from before the settlement agreement was enforced, and that waiver covers all of the claims he raised in this action.  Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.  However, because the defendants did not provide statutory or contractual support for their award of attorney fees and the record does not show conduct that is intentional and likely aggravated by cruel and tyrannical motives to support a common law attorney fee award of damages, we reverse the district court’s attorney fee award.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, William A. Price and Mark F. Schlenker, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (11 pages)

            K.G. appeals the child-in-need-of-assistance adjudication and disposition regarding her child, D.A.  K.G. contends that the State failed to prove the grounds for adjudication and removal.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State showed an imminent risk to D.A., we affirm.

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

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother is not able to provide for the present and future needs of her child, and delaying termination for six more months will not correct the situation.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal termination of their parental rights to their children.  OPINION HOLDS: After considering the arguments put forward by both parents on appeal, we affirm the termination of both parents’ rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the grounds for termination and arguing termination is contrary to the child’s best interests because of the parent-child bond.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Patrick McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the establishment of guardianships for two of her children.  OPINION HOLDS: The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts towards reunification.  We do not grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification, and we agree with the juvenile court at the establishment of guardianships is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the mother’s parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2023), termination is in the best interest of the child, and the application of a permissive exception is unwarranted.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother does not challenge all of the statutory grounds for termination, so we find statutory grounds authorizing termination of her rights satisfied under the unchallenged grounds.  The State established that the children cannot be safely returned to the father’s custody, satisfying a statutory ground for termination of his parental rights.  Termination of the father’s rights is in the children’s best interests.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to preserve the father’s parental rights.  We do not grant either parent any additional time to work toward reunification.