In the Matter of the Matthew Brandon Waltman Irrevocable Trust
In the Matter of the Matthew Brandon Waltman Irrevocable Trust n/k/a Richter Family Farm Trust Under Agreement Dated December 3, 2012
Matthew B. Waltman, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
Karen Richter Nutkiewicz, Individually, and as Trustee of Richter Family Farm Trust, Defendant-Appellant,
and
Gary D. Richter, Individually, as Trustee of the Richter Family Farm Trust, and as Trustee of the Donald E. Richter and Lavonne Richter Irrevocable Trust; Kathy A. Richter, individually, and as Trustee of the Richter Family Farm Trust; and Donald R. Richter and Lavonne Richter Irrevocable Trust Under Agreement Dated January 12, 2001, Defendants
Attorney for Appellant
Karen Richter Nutkiewicz, self-represented
Attorney for Appellee Matthew B. Waltman
Larry F. Woods
Attorneys for Gary D. Richter
Robert S. Hatala
Matthew L. Preston and Ann C. Gronlund
Attorney for Appellee Kathy A. Richter
Michael A. Dee, Robert D. Hodges, and James W. White
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (8 pages)
Beneficiary Karen Richter Nutkiewicz seeks to invalidate a court order approving a plan to make property distributions and then terminate a family farm trust. Karen twice filed motions to reconsider the district court’s order, contending a due process claim she did not receive “any notice whatsoever” of the hearing. The district court refused to reconsider its ruling. In addition, Karen’s appellate brief failed to address how she preserved error for appellate review. OPINION HOLDS: Where an omission does not hinder our consideration of the issue raised, we will decide it on the merits. Next, on Karen’s due process contention, because we cannot find in the record where she received a ruling on a constitutional claim, we deem that issue waived and, accordingly, give it no further consideration. Finally, because Karen’s attorney of record received notification in compliance with rule 1.442(2), we affirm the district court’s denial of her motions to reconsider.
