2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children, H.S., born in 2021, and R.B., born in 2023.  She argues the juvenile court should have granted a six month extension of the termination proceedings to allow her additional time to reunify with her children.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review, we affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Buller, P.J., Sandy, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (6 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s and father’s parental rights to C.H. and M.H. pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2024), respectively.  The parents separately appeal, but both argue giving them additional time to work toward reunification or, alternatively, establishing a guardianship is in the children’s best interests rather than termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We cannot say an additional six months will remedy the issues preventing reunification, so we agree with the juvenile court that additional time is not warranted.  And because there is not a viable option for guardian and a guardianship is not in the children’s best interests, we affirm the termination of the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.     

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to F.C., born in 2024, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  The mother challenges termination, arguing (1) it was improper for the juvenile court to hold a combined permanency and termination-of-parental-rights hearing, (2) the State failed to prove the statutory ground for termination because F.C. could have been returned to her custody, and (3) the court should have given her additional time to work toward reunification.  In the alternative, the mother asks for the court to establish a guardianship in lieu of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART ON APPEAL; REVERSED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals and the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services cross-appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional review order.  Both challenge the juvenile court’s denial of their requests for supervised visitation in a therapeutic setting.  And the father challenges the order for a new psychosexual evaluation, contending that the court erroneously denied his request that it be completed by a different evaluator than the first evaluation.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the visitation restriction.  Given the father’s progress over the past year, and with the safeguards of full supervision and a therapeutic setting, we believe the daughter can be adequately protected while allowing the case to proceed.  Because the court’s order does not prohibit a new evaluator for the father’s second psychosexual evaluation, and the Department agrees that a new evaluator is appropriate, we affirm the court’s order authorizing the evaluation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (10 pages)

            David Moffitt appeals the denial of postconviction relief, arguing his criminal defense counsel should have pursued diminished-responsibility and intoxication defenses during his trial on first-degree murder and first-degree robbery charges.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Moffitt failed to develop or obtain a ruling on his intoxication argument below, error is not preserved on that issue.  As for diminished responsibility, counsel did not breach any essential duty in forgoing the defense, as counsel reasonably concluded that the evidence at trial could not support the defense.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Connie Spencer appeals the decree dissolving her eleven-year, later-in-life marriage with David Christiansen.  She argues that the property division is inequitable and that the court should have awarded her traditional spousal support mainly because of her Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis during the marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with Spencer in one respect—she should have been credited for the significant improvements made during the marriage to the home awarded to Christiansen.  So we modify the decree to increase Christiansen’s equalization payment to Spencer by $24,000 to account for her contributions toward improving that home.  But on the remaining issues, we affirm the district court’s decree.  We find it equitable for Christiansen to retain the proceeds of selling his business very early in the marriage, the retirement and investment accounts were fairly divided, and Spencer failed to preserve error on any excess funds set aside for income taxes.  As for spousal support, Spencer leaves the marriage with significant assets and income and has not shown that this is the exceptional case justifying traditional spousal support so far outside the general twenty-year durational threshold.  Finally, we decline Christiansen’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            Imere Hall appeals the dismissal of his fourth application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Hall filed his application outside the statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2022) and does not raise a ground of law or fact that could not have been raised within the statute of limitations, we affirm the dismissal of his application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers, Badding, Chicchelly, and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (9 pages)

            Vernon Walker appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and possession of marijuana.  He argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict on either count.  OPINION HOLDS: The State presented substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings of guilt on both charges.  Accordingly, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Tabitha Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    The defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating while intoxicated, arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion because the presentence investigation reporter held a fixed policy for its sentencing recommendation, the court “fixated” on his prior vehicle accidents, and the court should have ordered probation rather than incarceration.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning and sentence, so we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard Stochl (unjust-enrichment counterclaims) and John J. Sullivan (quiet-title action), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            Michael and Bonnie Mulhern, executors of the estate of Cecelia Schimmel, appeal the district court’s grants of summary judgment (1) dismissing their quiet-title action under Iowa’s marketable-record-title statute for farmland that Schimmel originally inherited under the Kruger will and (2) ordering them to pay a portion of the crop-share rents received after Schimmel’s death on the Kruger-will remainder beneficiaries’ counterclaims for unjust enrichment.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly granted summary judgment on the estate’s quiet-title claim.  Schimmel inherited only a life estate under the Kruger will.  And the clerk’s certificate of change of title—which did not note that Schimmel’s interest was only a life estate—is not “a conveyance or other title transaction” under the marketable-record-title statute.  So the remainder beneficiaries’ interest in the farmland is not extinguished by that statute.  And because the estate did not preserve its challenges to the court’s method of apportioning the rents between the estate and the remainder beneficiaries for the year Schimmel died, we cannot consider the merits of that ruling on the beneficiaries’ unjust-enrichment counterclaim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Brad and Nancy Worrell appeal the district court’s judgment granting in part and denying in part their claim of adverse possession against Lake Crest Manor Home Owners Association.  They argue that the court erred in refusing to find their claim established for an additional parcel of land because their use of the additional land was “factually the same” as the smaller parcel of land for which the court found they established adverse possession.  OPINION HOLDS: Lake Crest Manor Home Owners Association does not cross-appeal.  So whether the Worrells proved all the requirements for adverse possession for that smaller parcel is not before us.  And we agree with the district court that the Worrells did not prove adverse possession for the additional parcel because the record lacks clear and positive proof that they had a good-faith claim of right to the land or that their use rose to the level of hostile, actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession for ten years.  We thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Andrew B. Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Jessica Dayton appeals the denial of her application for postconviction relief from her conviction of first-degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: Dayton’s due process claim is barred by Iowa Code § 822.8.  But even if we were to set section 822.8 aside, Dayton was not denied due process when the State presented minor discrepancies in its theory of the case at two other trials.  With respect to her other claims, Dayton fell short of proving her trial counsel was ineffective.  We therefore affirm.