2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Elisabeth Reynoldson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DETERMINE ATTORNEY FEES.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals an ordered child-care variance from the child-support guidelines.  The mother requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the variance, order the father to pay the mother’s reasonable appellate attorney fees, and remand for the district court to determine a reasonable amount.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            Adam Wuebker appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendants concerning a claim for interference with contractual relations.  OPINION HOLDS: We determine the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tamra Roberts, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            Petitioner appeals the district court order modifying the child support obligation established in the parties’ dissolution decree.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court order improperly determined the child support obligation using a formula presuming joint physical care.  We find the noncustodial parent is responsible for support.  The requirement to share the children’s expenses other than the uncovered medical expenses is eliminated.  Neither party is awarded appellate attorney fees.  We affirm the district court’s order as modified and remand with instructions for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Charles Nichols appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his marriage dissolution petition for failing to prove a common-law marriage with Mary Molloy Mauro.  OPINION HOLDS:  While Nichols has much evidence on his side, he has not carried his burden to prove a common-law marriage.  On balance, the parties’ shifting assertions of married and single status in various contexts reflect an intent to serve their personal convenience or financial benefit—not a present intent and agreement to be married.  Given the close merits of this appeal and the relative financial circumstances of the parties, we decline Molloy Mauro’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Greg Milani, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (6 pages)

            David Duane Boley appeals his convictions and sentences on charges of sexual abuse and incest, contending there is insufficient evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the verdicts, we affirm his convictions.  But because the trial court abused its discretion when imposing fines, we vacate this portion of the sentence and remand for limited resentencing on this issue.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            An adoptive mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the adoptive mother’s parental rights.  Also, termination of her parental rights is in the best interests of the child.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the best interests of D.D. and L.D., we affirm.  We also do not find an exception for a bond, nor do we grant the father’s request to defer permanency for six months.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, P.J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights to their child.  Both argue the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification and termination is not in the child’s best interests due to the strength of the parent-child bonds.  OPINION HOLDS: The department made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification.  Termination is in the child’s best interests, and neither parent established a parent-child bond strong enough to forgo termination.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I believe that the mother properly preserved her argument that the department failed to provide reasonable efforts when it provided her with a bus pass in light of her trauma with riding the bus system.  But, because the failure to address the issue with the bus pass did not impact the mother’s visitations, I agree with the majority that we should affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Richelle Mahaffey, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to five children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2023).  The mother argues termination was contrary to the children’s best interests, she is “bonded with the children,” and “[a]dditional time would have allowed [her] to obtain permanent housing and employment.”  The father argues the lack of visitation-related services after the parents moved to Illinois shortly before the termination hearing constituted a failure to make reasonable efforts at reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (18 pages)

            Michelle Boat appeals her conviction and sentence for murder in the first degree.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boat’s motion to strike a potential juror for cause or in denying her motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial error.  The court also did not err in considering Boat’s assets that are exempt from execution when determining her reasonable ability to pay category “B” restitution.  Therefore, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (20  pages)

            A defendant appeals his criminal convictions raising double jeopardy, insufficient evidence, and evidentiary claims.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the defendant’s convictions, concluding his rights against double jeopardy were not violated and substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of attempt to commit murder.  As for the claimed evidentiary errors, we find no prejudice by the admission of the child’s drawings, error was not preserved on the objection to the forensic interviewer’s testimony, and the photographs showing the victim’s injuries were not so unfairly prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value.