2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (13 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of parental rights to her three girls on multiple grounds.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that the State met its burden to show a basis for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024) as to the oldest child and (h) as to the two youngest and that the mother’s pattern of drug use, domestic violence, and contact with her daughter’s abuser makes termination in the children’s best interest.  We decline to apply an exception based on the parent-child bond, and we do not grant additional time for reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (13 pages)

A mother appeals the district court’s removal, adjudicatory, and dispositional orders concerning her three children.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s appeal of the initial removal order is moot, and she waived her challenge to the children’s adjudication.  We affirm the dispositional order as placement in the mother’s home is contrary to the welfare of the children and the placement ordered is the least restrictive placement that is appropriate considering the circumstances.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because there is not an adequate placement available for the middle child, custody should not be transferred from the mother.  I dissent in part, finding the child’s needs would be better met in the mother’s custody with department supervision. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINON HOLDS: Because the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing, a statutory ground for termination is satisfied.  The strength of the parent-child bond does not warrant forgoing termination in this instance.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (9 pages)

    Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to R.W., born in 2021.  They claim the district court erred in concluding the child could not safely be returned to their custody, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the parent-child bond should preclude termination.  The mother also claims the court should have placed the child in a guardianship with the maternal grandmother in lieu of terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.   
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we decline to apply a permissive exception or grant a six‑month extension, we affirm termination of the parents’ respective parental rights to their two children.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Virginia Cobb, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (10 pages)

    A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his seven-year-old daughter.  The State appeals the juvenile court’s dismissal of its petition to terminate the rights of the mother.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the record supports termination of the father’s rights and shows no detriment to the child through termination.  And we find the State failed to preserve error on any of its claims on the statutory grounds, so we need not address the court’s findings on any other steps of the termination analysis as to the mother.  We affirm on both appeals.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINON HOLDS: Because the father failed to present any substantive argument for our review, he has waived his appellate claims.  Even had the father not waived his claims, we would find multiple statutory grounds for termination satisfied, that termination is in the children’s best interests, there are no strong parent-child bonds to preclude termination, and there would be no basis for granting the father additional time to work towards reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (14 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court’s ruling terminating their parental rights for their two children.  On appeal, they make identical claims.  They contend that (1) the statutory grounds for termination were not established and (2) the juvenile court erred in not applying a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review of the record, we affirm on both appeals.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old son.  She contends the juvenile court was mistaken in finding that her son could not be safely returned to her custody.  She also asserts it would be in his best interests to give her “a few more months to prove her sobriety and stability.”  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State offered clear and convincing evidence that the child would be at risk of harm if returned to his mother’s custody, and that moving toward permanency now would serve his best interests, we affirm the termination order.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tom Reidel and Meghan Corbin, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Langholz, JJ., but decided by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            Northwest Bank & Trust Company appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim and the court’s denial of its motion for a new trial after an adverse jury verdict on its fraudulent-misrepresentation claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Pershing Hill Lofts, LLC’s agreement to seek financing exclusively from Northwest Bank in return for Northwest expending its resources on due diligence on the loan is not an agreement to agreement.  And the mutual obligations of this exclusivity agreement do not become unenforceable merely because they were included in a longer document that describes the tentative financing terms that everyone agrees cannot be enforced.  Neither does this exclusivity clause have any condition precedent.  Nor is it too indefinite to be enforced.  We thus reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings on Northwest Bank’s breach-of-contract claim.  Because the district court excluded any reference to the exclusivity agreement in the jury trial on Northwest Bank’s fraudulent-misrepresentation claims based on the erroneous summary-judgment ruling, we agree that Northwest Bank is entitled to a new trial on those claims as well.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (16 pages)

            Tony Arterberry challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and first-degree robbery.  He also disputes several evidentiary rulings, arguing they deprived him of a fair trial.  OPINION HOLDS: There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.  We affirm Arterberry’s convictions for all three crimes and reject his evidentiary challenges.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Jason D. Besler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Tamra and Scott Bradley appeal the denial of a directed verdict, arguing no evidence supported submitting comparative fault to the jury in the trial on their negligence claims against Timothy and Carol Tietz arising out of a truck crash.  OPINION HOLDS: Considering the evidence—including a video of the crash—in the light most favorable to the Tietzs, there was evidence from which a jury could find Tamra Bradley negligent and at least one percent at fault for the crash.  Thus, the Bradleys’ directed-verdict motion was properly denied.