June 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (18 pages)

            Following the death of her one-year-old son, Yemissi Keto appeals her convictions for first-degree murder and child endangerment resulting in death.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Keto did not make an offer of proof at trial on the evidentiary challenge she now raises, error is not preserved.  Corroborative evidence of Keto’s confession exists in the record to support the guilty verdicts.  And the jury was free to reject Keto’s insanity defense based on the expert testimony presented at trial.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Charles C. Sinnard, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            Brett Zumbrunnen appeals a ruling modifying the decree dissolving his marriage to Lynnde Zumbrunnen.  He claims the district court erred by failing to grant his request for primary physical care of the parties’ children and by requiring the parties to engage in counseling.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s modification order as modified to eliminate the counseling requirement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (10 pages)

            A jury convicted Stacy Diveley on six counts of child endangerment.  Stacy appeals, challenging the district court’s denial of her motion for mistrial.  Stacy raises two Brady challenges and one rule 5.403 challenge.  The State disputes Stacy preserved error on these issues.  OPINION HOLDS: Stacy failed to preserve error on her Brady challenges.  Assuming she preserved error on her rule 5.403 challenge, her failure to provide supportive legal authority has waived the issue.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Elizabeth Batey, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J. (6 pages)

            Defendant-Appellant Gregory Jackson appeals following his jury trial convictions for operating while intoxicated, first offense, a serious misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(a) (2023), and possession of a controlled substance, first offense, a serious misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5).  On appeal Jackson claims that the district court failed to apply the proper weight-of-the-evidence standard when ruling upon his motion for new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Jackson never received a ruling on the weight-of-the-evidence challenge and failed to preserve error, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (19 pages)

            CMT Highway, LLC (CMT) appeals from a ruling that found it breached its contracts with Logan Contractors Supply, Inc. (Logan Contractors).  CMT argues that it never formed binding contracts with Logan Contractors and, even if it did, it did not breach any contracts when it sought to change the purchase price of materials it was to produce for Logan Contractors.  CMT claims that even if it breached the contracts the court erred in awarding Logan Contractors damages for cover materials and including damages associated with separate projects not subject to the proposed price increases.  Logan Contractors cross-appeals challenging the interest awarded to CMT for previously delivered materials for which Logan Contractors had withheld payment, claiming CMT was improperly awarded double prejudgment interest.  Logan Contractors also argues that the court did not correctly set the start date and rate of post-judgment interest on its award against CMT.  OPINION HOLDS: The parties did form binding contracts when Logan Contractors accepted CMT’s bids, and CMT breached those contracts by refusing to produce materials for Logan Contractors at the agreed pricing.  The award of damages for cover materials is supported by substantial evidence.  Because CMT refused to continue to do any business with Logan Contractors if Logan Contractors did not agree to pay higher prices on certain projects, it repudiated all contracts it had with Logan Contractors and Logan Contractors was entitled to damages for cover materials on all projects, including those not subject to the price increases.  As to the cross-appeal, Logan Contractors failed to preserve error on its claim relating to post-judgment interest.  However, we remand to correct the prejudgment interest awarded to CMT for payments Logan Contractors withheld for previously delivered materials.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Wyatt Peterson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals from the modification of a custody decree, challenging a finding of a substantial change in circumstances and the father’s ability to provide superior care.  Both parents request appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the modification and decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            Scott Larson appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the Iowa Grain Indemnity Fund Board’s denial of his indemnification claim for soybeans delivered to a licensed grain dealer before the dealer filed for bankruptcy.  OPINION HOLDS: Reviewing the administrative record as a whole, we agree substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Larson transferred title to the grain outside the six-month indemnity window.  We thus affirm the Board’s denial of his indemnification claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (10 pages)

            In this postconviction-relief action, Jacob Beer argues his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to request and secure an interpreter in Dinka, a South Sudan language, and failing to explain the guilty plea to Beer before he signed it.  He claims he did not understand what his guilty plea meant because of the language barrier and maintains he only wanted to go to trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Beer failed to show he was prejudiced, so his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims fail.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (3 pages)

            A defendant appeals from the discretionary sentence and denial of deferred judgment following his guilty plea to domestic abuse assault causing injury.  He claims the district court had a fixed sentencing policy.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Linnette Sondgeroth challenges the property-division and attorney-fee provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Robert Sondgeroth.  Her central focus is to regain the inheritance monies she received in 2012 as a part of the property division.  Linnette also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it did not order Robert to pay her trial attorney fees and asks us to order Robert to pay her appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the decree to award Linnette all of her IPERS pension.  The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the parties to pay their own legal fees, and we do not award appellate attorney fees.  We affirm the decree as modified.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

            A drywall subcontractor tried to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against the general contractor and the owner of a construction project.  But that was impossible because the drywalling was for a public project.  This appeal arises from the subcontractor’s efforts to amend its petition and proceed instead under Iowa Code chapter 573 (2024), which governs public construction projects.  The general contractor and the owner moved to dismiss the amended petition, alleging the subcontractor failed to meet deadlines required by chapter 573.  The district court agreed and dismissed the subcontractor’s petition.  The subcontractor appeals, contending the court should have applied the relation-back doctrine, misinterpreted Iowa Code section 573.10 or, alternatively, overlooked evidence to support an equitable estoppel claim.  The subcontractor also challenges the court’s rulings on its claim of common law fraud and its request for sanctions.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss the amended petition and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for sanctions, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (6 pages)

            Following a guilty plea, a defendant challenges his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion by the district court and affirm.