In re the marriage of Johnathon Sprague and Lanora Sprague
In this modification action, Lanora Sprague seeks further review of a court of appeals decision reversing the district court’s order requiring Johnathon Sprague to sign a settlement agreement and remanding for an ancillary trial on the of whether a settlement agreement was reached, and, if so, the terms of such an agreement.
Upon the Petition of Johnathon Sprague,
Resister
And Concerning Lanora Sprague,
Applicant
Attorney for Resister
Peter G. Gierut
Attorney for Applicant
Jennie L. Clausen
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Feb 18, 2026 1:30 PM
Briefs
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John Telleen, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. Telleen, S.J., takes no part. Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. Dissent by Buller, J. (13 pages)
Johnathon (John) Sprague appeals the district court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement drafted by his ex-wife, Lanora Sprague. John contends no binding settlement existed because the version enforced by the court omitted terms regarding the children’s transportation and extracurricular activities—terms he asserts were orally agreed to during an informal settlement conference. Lanora requests John to pay her appellate attorney fees. OPINION HOLDS: There is no record of the settlement conference, or the terms purportedly agreed to that day, nor is there a transcript or evidentiary record from the hearing on Lanora’s motion to enforce the settlement. As a result, we have no basis on which to assess the parties’ competing claims. Without an evidentiary record to support the district court’s decision, the order enforcing the settlement agreement is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order granting Lanora’s motion to enforce settlement and remand for further proceedings. We deny Lanora’s request for appellate attorney fees. DISSENT ASSERTS: I dissent because appeals aren’t supposed to be do-overs after you fail to make a record below. In my view, the majority opinion decides this case backwards and reverses a district court ruling with inadequate record for us to conduct meaningful appellate review.