January 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (21 pages)

            Property owner Meera Enterprise, LLC appeals from a jury’s verdict awarding a storm restoration contractor, Aesthetic Elements, Inc., liquidated damages on the contractor’s claim for breach of contract.  Meera challenges (1) whether there was an enforceable contract; (2) the enforceability of a liquidated damages provision in that contract; (3) the admission of lost-profits testimony from the owner of Aesthetic Elements; and (4) the court’s refusal to submit a spoliation instruction to the jury.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered all the challenges raised by Meera on appeal, we affirm the jury’s verdict awarding Aesthetic Elements $93,329 in liquidated damages for Meera’s breach of the parties’ enforceable service agreement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Ronald Cooley challenges his conviction for failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements, second offense.  Cooley argues his conviction should be reversed because he was unable to comply with the statute as written—by registering in person—due to the local government’s decision to close the sheriff’s office during the COVID-19 pandemic.  More specifically, he maintains (1) the local decision to close the sheriff’s office and require offenders to register via alternative means (without the Iowa legislature amending the statute) amounts to a constitutional violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine and is fatal to applying the statute against him; (2) the marshalling jury instruction was in error because it did not include the statutory requirement that he register in person; and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Cooley failed to preserve his separation-of-powers claim, the marshalling instruction was proper in this case, and sufficient evidence supports his conviction, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Dissent by Langholz, J.  (18 pages)

            An employer appeals from a judicial-review proceeding following an adverse decision by the workers’ compensation commissioner.  OPINION HOLDS: Interpreting the statute in question in favor of the employee, we affirm the award of benefits.  Substantial evidence supports commissioner’s industrial disability determination.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Tyler Dungan returned to work and received the same or greater earnings as he did at the time of his unscheduled injury.  The plain and unambiguous text of Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(v) (2019) thus requires Dungan to “be compensated based only upon [his] functional impairment resulting from the injury, and not in relation to [his] earning capacity.”  And so, I would reverse the district court’s and workers’ compensation commissioner’s contrary interpretation of the statute and remand for the commissioner to decide an award based only on Dungan’s functional impairment. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Buller, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Following his 2014 convictions for burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, Joel Zamora filed his second application for postconviction relief, which the district court summarily dismissed as time-barred.  Zamora appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Zamora failed to establish a new ground of fact that allows him to overcome the three-year statute of limitations, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Sandy, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A postconviction-relief (PCR) applicant appeals the district court’s order granting the State’s motion for summary disposition of his PCR application.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the PCR application is not based on a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the three-year statute of limitation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            The City of Dubuque appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review, which affirmed a voluntary annexation.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not err in its ruling on judicial review, we affirm.

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

    Carlos Wakely appeals the revocation of his deferred judgment after he pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.  He claims the district court acted out of emotion when considering his probation violation and then entering judgment on his serious misdemeanor conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: The court did not abuse its discretion by substituting a suspended sentence in place of Wakely’s deferred judgment after considering his attitude at the probation violation hearing, the nature and circumstances of the assault, protection of the public, Wakely’s criminal history, his propensity for further criminal acts, his maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, and the plea agreement.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joshua P. Schier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Matthew Meisheid appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of assault on a peace officer while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1(2)(c) and 708.3A(2) (2022).  He argues that the evidence was insufficient on two elements of the offense—that he displayed the gun “in a threatening manner” and that he did so “toward” either deputy.”  And he contends the district court abused its discretion in finding no mitigating circumstances to reduce his mandatory minimum sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports both challenged elements of the offense.  And we do not interpret the statutory term “display toward” to require Meisheid to “point toward” the deputies with the gun because the statute separately prohibits pointing a weapon toward another.  We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing.  The record shows that the court was aware of the potential mitigating circumstances and merely concluded they did not warrant sentencing Meisheid to less than the mandatory minimum.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, Adria Kester, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A defendant appeals his sentence for third-degree sexual abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defendant has not shown the sentencing court abused its discretion when considering the victim impact statement, declining to impose probation, or declining to suspend the statutory fine and surcharge, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED As MODIFIED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (15 pages)

            Mathias Libby appeals the district court order denying his petition for modification of the custody decree for his minor daughter.  Specifically, he argues the district court erred in not granting his requests for joint physical care and ordering a minor alteration to the holiday visitation schedule.  He also contends the district court erred by awarding the child’s mother trial attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: After our review of the record, we conclude the district court properly denied Libby’s requests for modification.  However, we find the district court abused its discretion in awarding the child’s mother trial attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sean W. McPartland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (6 pages)

            Mortgagors in a foreclosure proceeding—Lien Vu, Sankar Baruah, and Liberty View Mall, L.L.C.—appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the mortgagee—Solon State Bank.  They argue foreclosure was improper because they entered into a forbearance agreement with Solon State Bank.  OPINION HOLDS: The mortgagors failed to generate a dispute of material fact over whether the parties entered into a forbearance agreement.  Their summary-judgment evidence does not show any mutual intent to cabin Solon State Bank’s foreclosure rights, instead resting exclusively on their own subjective—and unilateral—understanding of the circumstances.  And they cannot rely on Solon State Bank’s course of conduct leading up to foreclosure to infer the existence of an agreement, as Solon State Bank could accept partial payments without waiving its foreclosure rights and indeed acted to enforce its rights, including accelerating all three notes.  Thus, because the mortgagors agree they were in default and we find no evidence showing the parties entered into a forbearance agreement, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (12 pages)

    Robert and Judy Millius sued Area Residential Care, Inc. and Area Residential Care Foundation (collectively ARC) on behalf of their son, Logan, in January 2022.  After a series of discovery disputes between counsel for the parties, the district court dismissed the Milliuses’ suit with prejudice in September 2023.  The Milliuses appeal, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing their claims because their failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure and the court’s discovery orders was not willful or in bad faith.  They also argue that providing ARC’s counsel with a patient waiver satisfying Iowa Code section 622.10(3) (2022) obviated the need to respond to ARC’s requests for production of Logan’s medical information.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding that the Milliuses failed to preserve error on the patient-waiver issue and no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the Milliuses’ claims as a sanction for their repeated violations of the court’s orders and discovery rules, we affirm.