2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request for six more months to work toward reunification, as she offered little evidence showing she could make the necessary progress to eliminate the need for removal by the end of that period.  Given the mother’s concession that, absent that extra time to make progress, the son could not be returned to her custody, termination was appropriate under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  The mother has waived any best-interest challenge.  And because the mother never advocated for a permissive exception during the termination hearing, we cannot consider the issue for the first time on appeal.  We thus affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (5 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother has not engaged in any services or seen the children since removal, we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds relied on by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude clear and convincing evidence exists in this record to support a ground for termination relied on by the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She claims the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination, argues termination is not in the child’s best interests, contends the strength of the parent-child bond should preclude termination, and argues that she should at least be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody, establishing a ground for termination.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  The parent-child bond is not healthy and should not be preserved.  And we do not grant the mother any additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Adria Kester, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (2 pages)

            Chad Vice appeals the dismissal of his civil suit for lack of service.  OPINION HOLDS: Vice’s notice of appeal was late, which deprives us of jurisdiction.  We dismiss the appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (15 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his ten convictions arising from a robbery and subsequent attempted murder of a peace officer and other events.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the conviction for trafficking stolen weapons and affirm the other nine convictions.  We remand to the district court with directions.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

    The former employee of a dairy farm petitioned for replevin and damages when the farmer kept a tractor the employee alleged he owned but used in his work at the dairy.  The district court granted the employee’s petition, finding he had a superior claim of ownership, and awarding damages because the farmer wrongfully detained the tractor for more than a year.  The farmer contests that ruling, alleging the former employee acquired the tractor by fraud and has no rightful claim to own it.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the replevin ruling, and we find no error of law, so we affirm.  
 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (5 pages)

    A defendant appeals his sentence for violation of sex offender registry requirements, contending that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to an indeterminate five-year prison term.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court reached a reasonable result after weighing the appropriate factors, we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot and Kevin McKeever, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (9 pages)

            Homeowners allege the district court erred in interpreting their breach‑of-contract claim and granting summary judgment on their consequential‑damages and bad‑faith claims against their insurer following the 2020 derecho windstorm.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the district court did not err in its summary judgment rulings or by dismissing the case once repair payments were made in full, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, David Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  Dissent by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            Doug Faust appeals the spousal-support award of a decree dissolving his fifteen-year marriage with Abbey Faust.  He argues the ten-year award to Abbey is inequitable and should be denied or reduced in duration or amount.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, mindful of the superior position of the district court to assess Abbey’s credibility about her disability and the supreme court’s admonition to refrain from undue tinkering with spousal-support awards on appeal, we agree with the district court that the award is equitable.  DISSENT ASSERTS: While I agree the majority that Abbey Faust should be awarded some spousal support, I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the amount of spousal support awarded by the district court.  Equity requires a substantially lower spousal-support award, so I would modify the district court’s decree accordingly.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (13 pages)

    James Ernst appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his 2016 conviction of first-degree murder.  Ernst claims his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to strike a juror for cause, failing to locate and depose State and defense witnesses, failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing statement that he asserts amounted to misconduct, failing to object to a defense witness who testified while attired in inmate clothing along with handcuffs and shackles, and for failing to request a spoliation instruction concerning a lost video.  Also, Ernst claims his PCR counsel was ineffective by failing to contact or investigate witnesses who would have testified at the PCR hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm. 
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            Lundell Buchanan appeals the district court’s dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  On appeal, he argues the district court erred by excluding his telephonic testimony and by finding his trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly determined Buchanan failed to prove his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.  We affirm the decision.