December 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals the district court’s finding of a lack of good cause as to an untimely filing of a motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (6 pages)

            Jimmy Prophete appeals his sentences for attempted murder and willful injury causing serious injury.  He argues that the district court abused its discretion by considering impermissible factors in deciding to impose the sentences consecutively when it reasoned that (1) the two offenses “are separate things” despite occurring in the same incident with the same victim and (2) the factual circumstances showed premeditation despite the jury acquitting the defendant of going armed with intent.  OPINION HOLDS: Neither challenged ground is an impermissible factor.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.  We thus affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, John R. Flynn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (3 pages)

            Jonathan Govias appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment dismissing his claims for race and color discrimination and retaliation.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Govias fails to challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on the same-decision defense, he has waived that issue and we affirm on that ground.

            Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services challenges a juvenile court order compelling it to facilitate and cover the cost of a father’s sex-offender treatment during a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding and prohibiting even supervised visitation between the father and his daughter.  The Department argues that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority in ordering the services and compelling payment and erred in restricting all visitation between the father and his daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the Department never presented its statutory- or constitutional-authority arguments to the juvenile court—and the juvenile court never ruled on them—error is not preserved for appellate review.  And since we have already reversed the father’s visitation restrictions in his expedited appeal while this certiorari proceeding was pending, that issue is now moot.  We thus annul the writ.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (7 pages)

            Joseph Crouch challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the elements of intent and lack of justification for his convictions of attempted murder and willful injury causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports both convictions, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals a modification order granting sole legal custody of his ten-year-old daughter to the mother.  He also challenges the limitations on his parenting time.  Defending the order, the mother asks for appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record, we find the mother met her burden to show a material and substantial change of circumstances to support modification.  And granting her sole legal custody will better protect the child’s health and well-being.  Thus, we affirm the modification order.  But we deny the mother’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Robert D. Tiefenthaler, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender.  OPINION HOLDS:   Because substantial evidence supports the conviction, we affirm.  As to the bifurcated-trial issue, we find the district court erred in denying the defendant a bifurcated trial and remand with directions. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Rustin Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (12 pages)

            A homeowner appeals the grant of summary judgment to the lender in a foreclosure action.  She contends she was entitled to a notice of the right to cure the default under Iowa Code section  654.2D(2) (2023), and the foreclosure action should be dismissed.  OPINION HOLDS: Reading the statutory terms with the loan contract terms, we conclude that the homeowner was not a borrower, thus, not entitled to a notice of right to cure under the statute.  We find no legal error in the court’s conclusion that the lender was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  So we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, David Faith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            David and Ann Clodfelder appeal the district court’s order denying their petition to quiet title against Darren and Jennifer Starman.  OPINION HOLDS: The Clodfelders failed to prove by clear evidence that the original plat contains a scrivener’s error, a boundary by acquiescence was established, the disputed land was adversely possessed, or that the Starmans trespassed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (13 pages)

            A cattle owner appeals from the district court’s ruling granting his feed supplier’s motion for summary judgment, claiming the district court erred in concluding he could not recover against the feed supplier under the theories of breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and negligence.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

            Matt Johnson appeals from the order modifying the child-custody provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Katie Johnson.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Because the evidence shows that joint physical care does not serve the children’s best interests, we affirm the denial of Matt’s request to modify physical care.  II. We affirm the visitation schedule set out in the modification order.  III. Based on the parties’ relative earnings, we award Katie $1000 in appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, Carl J. Petersen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Sandy, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (21 pages)

            A respondent appeals the decree dissolving his marriage arguing the district court erred by (1) failing to award joint custody, (2) sustaining the petitioner’s motion for sanctions against him for failing to respond to discovery, (3) failing to equitably divide property, and (4) ordering him to pay $5000 in attorney fees to the petitioner.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.