Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 18-1750

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


Karen Richter Nutkiewicz, Individually, and as Trustee of Richter Family Farm Trust, Defendant-Appellant,


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:
Feb 19, 2020

            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.

© 2024 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.