Most Recent Court of Appeals Summaries

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Christopher L. Bruns, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (17 pages)

            A homeowner, Michael Holmstedt, appeals the district court’s summary-judgment ruling dismissing his declaratory judgment action against his condominium association’s board of directors, the Lexington East Unit One Owners Association, and the court’s order awarding attorney fees to the Board. He argues that a fact dispute remains about whether the limited financial reviews obtained by the Board for 2018, 2020, and 2022 comply with the requirement in the association’s bylaws for “an audit of the accounts and financial records of the Association.” And he argues that the court erred in awarding the Board attorney fees under a bylaws provision that it concluded authorizes attorney fees in any suit in which the Board is a party. OPINION HOLDS: The court did not err in granting summary judgment. While Holmstedt’s interpretation of the bylaws’ audit requirement is not unreasonable, he failed to generate a material factual dispute because the Board’s interpretation is also reasonable and entitled to deference under the bylaws and the business-judgment rule. But we agree with Holmstedt’s challenge to the attorney-fees award. The bylaws provision relied on by the district court—when properly interpreted in its full context—only authorizes attorney fees when the association sues for a money judgment on unpaid assessments or other sums due or to foreclose on its assessment lien. Neither situation exists here. So we reverse the attorney-fees award based on that bylaws provision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (7 pages)

            The applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief alleging his trial and postconviction counsel were ineffective.  He contends trial counsel coerced him to plead guilty and he did so only under duress.  He also contends neither trial nor PCR counsel effectively investigated his claim of actual innocence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find neither attorney failed in any essential duty, we affirm the denial of relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable Linda M. Fangman, Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Marlon Harris Jr. appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing the district court erred in rejecting his claim that trial counsel failed to fully investigate an intoxication defense to Harris’s first-degree robbery charge.  OPINION HOLDS: Harris failed to present proof of the existence of any evidence that he complains trial counsel failed to investigate or present at his trial.  Because he has failed to show prejudice, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, The Honorable Joel W. Barrows, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (8 pages)

            A defendant appeals his convictions of first-degree arson and first-degree murder, arguing the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the individual who committed those crimes. OPINION HOLDS: Because sufficient evidence supports his convictions, we affirm on both counts.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Kevin McKeever, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. Special concurrence by Sandy, J. Dissent by Badding, J. (24 pages)

            A defendant appeals his convictions for murder and going armed with intent. He contends the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant his for-cause challenge regarding a jury member who knew of his prior guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the juror had actual bias under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(5)(o), we reverse and remand for a new trial. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in result but concur separately to emphasize that when a juror’s continued service requires their suppression of information the law forbids the jury to hear, the error is not cured by that juror’s promise “not to tell the other jurors.” DISSENT ASSERTS: Rule 2.18(5)(o) is concerned with actual bias—and that is lacking here.  Because R.L. expressed no actual bias against Walker, and the circumstances did not otherwise indicate R.L. could not remain impartial, I would defer to the district court’s privileged position to determine R.L.’s fitness for jury service.  I would also affirm the district court’s findings on the other two issues Walker raises in this appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, The Honorable Kathryn E. Austin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Ricardo Velez Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence for harassment in the second degree.  On appeal, he combines a weight-of-the-evidence and sufficiency challenge to the State’s proof on whether he made a threat to commit bodily injury.  He also challenges the district court’s decision to run his sentence consecutively to the sentence in another case. OPINION HOLDS: Velez’s challenge to the weight of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review.  The evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for harassment in the second degree, and the district court provided adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.  Accordingly, we affirm Velez’s conviction and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, The Honorable John Telleen and The Honorable Henry Latham II, Judges. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Telleen, S.J., takes no part. Opinion by Buller, J. (9 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his recidivist conviction for domestic abuse assault, contesting the admission of an unavailable witness’s statements and arguing the district court denied him a bifurcated trial on his prior convictions OPINION HOLDS: Because the State met its burden to prove forfeiture-by-wrongdoing, we affirm the conviction. As to the bifurcated trial issue, we find the district court erred in denying the defendant a bifurcated trial and vacate the recidivist enhancement and remand with directions.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Katie Ranes, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (4 pages)

              A daughter appeals a district court order compelling her to cover all fees and costs associated with her petition to establish a guardianship and conservatorship for her mother, which was voluntarily dismissed two weeks after filing. OPINION HOLDS: Because good cause supports the court’s fee order, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm. We further award respondent’s counsel $3,100 in appellate attorney fees.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Gregory D. Brandt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (11 pages)

              Peter Vannausdle appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicating after a conditional guilty plea, challenging only the denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the district court erred in failing to suppress: (1) statements about his drinking that he made during the traffic stop because the deputy sheriff did not first advise him of his Miranda rights and (2) evidence of his refusal to submit to chemical testing because the deputy violated his rights to see his father in person and to call an attorney under Iowa Code section 804.20 (2023). OPINION HOLDS: Vannausdle was not in custody during the deputy’s traffic-stop questioning, so Miranda’s protections did not apply. Neither did the deputy hinder Vannausdle’s exercise of his rights under section 804.20. Vannausdle made multiple phone calls to family members, and the deputy’s response to questioning during one of those calls that Vannausdle’s father would have to wait to take Vannausdle home did not violate section 804.20. So too did Vannausdle have ample chance to call an attorney, and the deputy had no duty to take further action to facilitate a call because of Vannausdle’s comments about an attorney.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Mark D. Fisher, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (9 pages).

            Aaron Secor appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, asserting the district court erred in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective by failure to move for a mistrial and not filing motions in arrest of judgment or for new trial, and that appellate counsel was not ineffective by raising a single unpreserved claim on direct appeal. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, The Honorable Tom Reidel, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (16 pages)

            Marchant appeals his convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and invasion of privacy, claiming (1) the State presented insufficient evidence that he had knowledge or responsibility for the hidden cameras and the nude videos and images. He claims the district court abused its discretion in (2) excluding evidence that a topless photo of the victim had been found on the victim’s cellphone; (3) admitting an extraction report of Google emails referencing purported phone factory reset attempts; (4) excluding a text message exchange between the victim’s mother and her paramour; and (5) admitting evidence of bookmarks to stepfather/stepdaughter-related pornographic websites. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Nathan Brocks appeals the district court’s order denying his application for postconviction relief.  He contends his first-degree burglary conviction was the product of ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence showing the apartment he entered was “an occupied structure in which one or more persons are present.” Iowa Code § 713.3 (2019).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defense Brocks alleges would have been meritless under our supreme court’s binding precedent, we find no breach of duty or prejudice in counsel’s failure to raise it.  We therefore affirm the denial of postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, The Honorable Patrick H. Tott, Judge. CONVICTION CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J. (5 pages)

            Mario Alberto Corona Ruiz appeals his conviction for first-degree murder.  On appeal, he argues there was insufficient evidence he acted with premeditation, malice aforethought, and specific intent to kill when he shot the victim.  Then, Corona Ruiz argues the district court failed to independently weigh the evidence against the jury’s verdict in denying his motion for new trial. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we conditionally affirm Corona Ruiz’s conviction and remand for the district court to reconsider his motion for new trial. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, The Honorable John J. Haney, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL, AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Brenda Huegerich appeals the property-division, spousal-support, and trial-attorney-fee provisions of the district court’s decree dissolving her marriage to Steven Huegerich.  Steven cross-appeals the spousal-support award.  Both parties seek appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the property-division provisions of the decree after accounting for several debts not accounted for by the district court.  We affirm the court’s spousal-support and trial-attorney-fee determinations.  We deny Steven’s request for appellate attorney fees and order him to pay one-half of the appellate attorney fees requested by Brenda.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, The Honorable Patrick A. McElyea, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (10 pages)

            Damon Stalkfleet appeals the district court ruling in favor of Edgar Stroughmatt’s motion for summary judgment. He asserts there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Stroughmatt possessed actual knowledge of peril to be apprehended because of improper training and faulty equipment leading to Stalkfleet’s brother’s death, based on alleged co-employee gross negligence. He also alleges that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether bystander liability extends to Stalkfleet because he witnessed his brother’s injuries. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Stroughmatt.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable David P. Odekirk, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (11 pages)

            This appeal arises from a jury’s verdict finding Devin Toler guilty of child endangerment causing bodily injury to his infant son. Toler challenges the weight of the evidence, portions of the State’s closing argument, the sentencing court’s consideration of alleged unproven conduct, and the scope and duration of the no-contact order OPINION HOLDS: After careful review of the record, we affirm, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Toler’s motion for new trial, overruling his claims of prosecutorial error, imposing sentence, or entering a no-contact order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, The Honorable Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            Michael Leahey appeals the property division set out in the decree dissolving his marriage to Heather Darling.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Michael challenges the exclusion of Heather’s inherited property from the overall property division, arguing that his marital contributions increased the value of the inherited property.  But the evidence does not show that Michael contributed to the increase in the value of Heather’s inherited property and excluding it from the property division is not unjust.  II. We award Heather $7,500 in appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, The Honorable Shayne Mayer, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (9 pages)

            A beneficiary to Arthur Kahler’s will appeals the district court’s construction of that will. The beneficiary contends there is a scrivener’s error that we can correct to direct Arthur’s after-acquired property to the beneficiary’s family. OPINION HOLDS: The will contains a false description of real property, resulting in the devise being void. So, we affirm the district court’s decision that the after-acquired property must pass through article four of the will, which devises the residue of Arthur’s estate.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, The Honorable Amy M. Moore, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (8 pages)

            Walmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust appeal the district court’s ruling upholding the Marshall County Board of Review’s 2023 property tax assessment.  Walmart argues the district court erred when it (1) accepted an appraisal which assumed the store was leased when it was owner-occupied, and (2) found the board’s appraisal more credible than Walmart’s.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on our de novo review, we find the district court did not err in accepting the methodology of the Board’s expert witness.  And we find no error in the district court finding the Board’s expert more credible than Walmart’s experts. 

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, The Honorable Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

              Sean Michael Hilliard appeals the dismissal of his second postconviction relief application as time-barred. OPINION HOLDS: Because applying the three-year limitations period within Iowa Code section 822.3 (2024) does not offend due process, nor has Hilliard shown he was in fact precluded from timely bringing an ineffective-assistance claim against first PCR counsel, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, The Honorable DeDra Schroeder, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Bower, S.J. (4 pages)

            Elgin Richmond appeals his sentence, claiming the district court failed to consider certain mitigating factors. OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when imposing Richmond’s sentence, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, The Honorable Thomas A. Bitter, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (6 pages).

            Troy Meyer appeals the district court’s sentencing decision following his guilty plea, including the imposition of restitution. Meyer claims the district court erred by not considering all relevant factors when formulating the sentencing decision and in failing to explain why the sentence differed from the plea agreement. Meyer also contends that there was insufficient evidence of the amount of damages imposed in the restitution order. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in the sentencing decision and no error in the restitution portion of the sentencing order. We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Mark D. Fisher, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (10 pages)

            Cabrina Pflughaupt and James Pflughaupt appeal the probate court’s order rejecting their proposal to purchase farmland from their mother’s estate and removing them as co-executors for self-dealing and other grounds.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree that the co-executors, through their self-dealing, have mismanaged the estate and failed to perform their fiduciary duties.  Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the order of the probate court on all issues and remand for further proceedings

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, The Honorable Tod Deck, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J. Opinion by Langholz, J. (4 pages)

              Jeremy Saul appeals his convictions for eluding and first-degree theft as a habitual offender, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence that he was the person who committed these offenses. OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Saul was the driver of the stolen car in the high-speed chase. We thus affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, The Honorable John J. Haney, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (7 pages)

            Following his felony convictions for lascivious acts with a child and misdemeanor conviction for indecent contact with a child, Kenneth Burke appeals the sentence imposed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, The Honorable Alan T. Heavens, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (17 pages)

            Tony and Rebecca Seitz appeal an order recognizing an easement on their property for ingress and egress to Ryan Lutze’s neighboring property. OPINION HOLDS: Because an easement was neither continuously and obviously used nor reasonably necessary at the time the parties’ properties were separated, the district court erred in granting Lutze’s claim for an easement by implication and Lutze’s claim for an easement by necessity also fails. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, The Honorable Shayne Mayer, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (8 pages)

            Tayten Darnell appeals the custody and child-support order under Iowa Code chapter 600B (2024) that placed his daughter in the physical care of her mother, Emily Mairose. OPINION HOLDS: Considering which placement would best provide stability for the daughter and foster her relationships with both parents, we modify the decree to place the daughter in Tayten’s physical care. We also remand the case to the district court to establish a visitation schedule for Emily and calculate an appropriate child-support award. And we decline Emily’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, The Honorable Robert J. Richter, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (5 pages).

            Sara Krausman appeals the sentences imposed by the district court following a global plea agreement. She asserts the district court failed to indicate whether her sentences would run concurrently or consecutively and only indicated that in the event her probation was revoked, the sentences for certain counts would run consecutively. She argues the imposed sentence was illegal, and that her sentences should be presumed to run concurrently. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, The Honorable Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Harold and Jody Johnson (the Johnsons) appeal the district court’s ruling granting summary judgement for Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Company of Iowa (Farmers).  The Johnsons allege Farmers should be equitably estopped from claiming the contractual limitations period had expired.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the two-year contractual limitations period had run and the Johnsons have not shown that they requested their insurance policy from Farmers who refused to provide it, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, The Honorable Shayne Mayer, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J. (6 pages)

            Jessica Ries appeals the district court's order denying her motion to suppress.  She argues law enforcement’s search and seizure of her person lacked probable cause.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Ries consented to the search of her person, we affirm the district court’s denial of Ries’ motion to suppress. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, The Honorable Robert J. Richter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            Brian Bennett appeals his sentences after pleading guilty to third-degree burglary and domestic abuse assault.  He argues the court abused its discretion by relying predominantly on his criminal history in determining his sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: Simply because the district court weighed Bennett’s criminal history more heavily than the mitigating factors does not mean the court abused its sentencing discretion.  We affirm Bennett’s sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable Linda M. Fangman, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (5 pages)

            Janackery Winston argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing incarceration rather than a suspended sentence, asserting the court failed to adequately credit his mental-health history, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation. OPINION HOLDS: Because the sentence was authorized by statute and grounded in a reasoned assessment of the relevant factors, Winston has not overcome the strong presumption in favor of the district court’s sentencing decision, and we thus affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Gregory D. Brandt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Langholz, J. (7 pages)

            Alfredo Lorenzo Pena appeals his two-year indeterminate prison sentence after pleading guilty to operating while intoxicated, second offense. He argues that the district court improperly considered unproven conduct and failed to comply with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(2)(b) and Iowa Code section 901.5(7). OPINION HOLDS: The court’s reliance on defense counsel’s statements about the probation officer’s recommendation against probation and Lorenzo Pena’s conduct while on probation was not improper. The court’s question to Lorenzo Pena before imposing sentence substantially complied with rule 2.23(2)(b). And assuming that the court was required to inform Lorenzo Pena he had already served the mandatory minimum, that omission does not invalidate his sentencing. We thus affirm Lorenzo Pena’s sentence.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable David F. Staudt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (5 pages)

              Bradley Jaquith appeals from the district court’s final domestic abuse protective order. The district court found Bradley committed domestic abuse against his wife, Abbey Jaquith. Bradley argues insufficient evidence supports such a finding. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, The Honorable Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (3 pages)

            Scafferi Enterprises, LLC appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Justin Wise, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence showing Scafferi was obligated to complete the reconstruction of Wise’s fire-damaged home.  OPINION HOLDS: Our review in this case is for correction of errors at law.  Because Scafferi never moved for a directed verdict, it failed to preserve any claim of legal error related to the sufficiency of the evidence.  Accordingly, we decline to consider this appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge. APPEAL DISMISSED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (3 pages)

            Stephanie Beveridge appeals her sentence following entry of a guilty plea. OPINION HOLDS: Because Beveridge received the sentence agreed upon by the parties in the plea agreement, she cannot establish good cause to appeal.  Because she cannot establish good cause to appeal, we do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, The Honorable Terry Rickers, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (8 pages)

            Katie Dekker appeals the district court’s ruling modifying the dissolution decree between her and Bradley Witt. She contends the district court erred in modifying the decree to grant both her and Bradley joint physical care of the children. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the district court did equity in determining that a shared physical care arrangement serves the best interests of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Kimberly Ayotte, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two daughters. The mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination. Both parents advocate for the application of a statutory exception to termination. The father doesn’t challenge the statutory grounds for termination but contends termination was not in the children’s best interests. He also advocates for placing the children in a guardianship with his mother. OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the statutory grounds for termination of the mother’s rights and the parents failed to show an exception applies. Termination of the father’s rights was in their best interests. And the circumstances are inappropriate for a guardianship with the maternal grandmother. So, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, The Honorable Amy M. Moore, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J. (6 pages)

            Kamryn Jacobsen appeals the order granting her joint physical care of the child she shares with Austin Wood. OPINION HOLDS:  The record supports awarding the parties joint physical care of the child.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Kimberly Ayotte, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son. The mother argues that termination of her parental rights is not in the son’s best interest. In his petition on appeal and many other appellate motions, the father challenges jurisdiction and generally assails the legitimacy of both the child-in-need-of-assistance and termination proceedings. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm both terminations. We will not delay permanency for the son while the mother travels the long road of imprisonment and recovery. As for the father, we have carefully reviewed the record and find no jurisdictional, statutory, or evidentiary errors that require reversal. And we agree that the State proved that termination was warranted and in the son’s best interest.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Rachael E. Seymour, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (13 pages)

              After parental rights were terminated, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe moved to transfer the child-custody proceedings to tribal court under Iowa Code chapter 232B (2025). The juvenile court denied the request, finding good cause based on perceived logistical and procedural hardships. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, the record does not support that conclusion. Because the statutory exception to mandatory transfer was not established, the court was required to grant the Tribe’s motion. We therefore reverse and remand for transfer of jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Brent Pattison, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. (12 pages)

            A guardian ad litem appeals the denial of a petition for termination of a father’s parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Finding termination of the father’s rights and establishing permanency is in the children’s best interests, we reverse and remand with directions to terminate the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Carrie K. Bryner, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She contends the State failed to prove a statutory ground for termination and argues a permissive exception to termination should apply based on the closeness of the mother–child relationship.  The mother asks this court to reverse the termination or grant her more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights and deny her request for additional time.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Lynn Poschner, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Chicchelly and Langholz, JJ., but decided en banc. Opinion by Langholz, J. Dissent by Schumacher, J.  (18 pages)

            The State appeals a juvenile court order transferring guardianship and custody of the children to their foster parents rather than the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services after termination of the parental rights of the children’s parents. The State argues that the juvenile court was required to appoint the Department as guardian under Iowa Code section 232.117(3) (2025) because the Department did not waive its priority. OPINION HOLDS: Section 232.117(3) gives the Department the highest priority in consideration among the four categories of potential guardians. But it authorizes the juvenile court to select from “any of” those categories. And like the rest of chapter 232, the court must consider the child’s best interest along with the order of priority in selecting the appropriate guardian. We thus reject the State’s argument on appeal that the juvenile court was mandated to appoint the Department as guardian merely because the Department had not waived its right to first-priority consideration. Because the State makes no other challenge to the juvenile court’s order, we affirm.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, as I disagree with the determination that Iowa Code section 232.117(3) does not require the court to place custody and guardianship with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services following termination, absent waiver by the Department. I would reverse and remand with instructions to appoint the Department as the guardian and custodian of J.B. and R.R.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, The Honorable Patrick McAvan, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Badding, P.J. (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He challenges the juvenile court’s findings that termination is in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, The Honorable Erica Crisp, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, P.J. (12 pages)

              A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we agree that the child could not be returned to the mother at the time of the termination hearing and it was in the child’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights, so we affirm the termination of parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, The Honorable Charles D. Fagan, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She argues (1) there was insufficient evidence supporting the grounds for termination, (2) the State failed to make reasonable reunification efforts, (3) termination of her parental rights is not in the best interests of the children, and (4) the State failed to prove that the children could not be returned to the mother at the time of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we find clear and convincing evidence supports termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), termination is in the children’s best interests, and the mother did not preserve error on her reasonable efforts argument.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, The Honorable Kristal Phillips, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (7 pages)

            The parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their toddler daughter. OPINION HOLDS: The State presented clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to their custody and it is in her best interests to terminate their parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, The Honorable Joan M. Black, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (10 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son. The father claims the district court erred in concluding the child could not safely be returned to his custody, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and the parent-child bond should preclude termination. The mother requests an extension of time to work toward reunification and contends the court erred in rejecting her request to reopen the record to accept evidence of her continued participation in reunification services after the termination hearing. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, The Honorable Adam D. Sauer, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and arguing a permissive exception to termination applies. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.