2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her five children, A.R., M.T., I.T., L,M., and M.M., who ranged in ages from nine to one years old, respectively, at the time of the March 2020 termination hearing.  The juvenile court terminated her rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), (f), and (h) (2020).  On appeal, the mother challenges the statutory grounds for termination, argues the loss of her rights is not in the children’s best interests, and maintains termination would harm the children so the parent-child relationships should be saved.  Alternatively, she maintains she should be given six more months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to all five children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to a child born in 2018.  He contends (1) “[t]he District Court failed to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard when finding the underlying facts in its decision to terminate parental rights as required by Iowa Code 232.117(2) and (3)” (2019) and (2) the State failed to prove “a nexus between [his] struggles and his ability and willingness to be a safe parent.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  Dissent by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  He challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination and argues termination is contrary to the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the State failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to allow termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) (2019).  We reverse the termination of the father’s parental rights and remand for dismissal of the termination petition as to him.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent.  I would affirm the juvenile court decision to terminate the father’s parental rights because I believe the State showed by clear and convincing evidence that this father is unable to provide a safe long-term environment for this child.  The tipping point for me is the lack of involvement in the basic medical care of this young child who has a life-long medical condition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental right to his minor child.  On appeal, the father argues: (1) he should be given additional time to work toward reunification; (2) terminating the father’s parental rights is not in W.L.’s best interest; and (3) the juvenile court should have placed W.L. in the guardianship of W.L.’s paternal grandmother instead of terminating the father’s parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court properly declined to grant the father a six-month extension.  The juvenile court further correctly concluded termination is in W.L.’s best interest.  Finally, the record indicates the grandmother is not a suitable placement for W.L.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Annie Reynolds, Magistrate, and Gregory D. Brandt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Miranda Simpson appeals following her conviction of the simple misdemeanor crime of third-degree harassment, contending (1) the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for the admission of the Facebook posts and (2) the magistrate’s finding of guilt lacked sufficient evidentiary support.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the admission the challenged exhibit and the weight assigned to it, and we affirm the finding of guilt for third-degree harassment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (12 pages)

            Lorenza Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief following his 2015 conviction of invasion of privacy–nudity.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the court’s order denying Johnson’s application for postconviction relief. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (13 pages)

            The husband in this dissolution of marriage proceeding appeals the property division provisions of the district court’s decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find it equitable to modify the property division, including ordering the husband to transfer $62,000 of his 401(k) to the wife and to make an additional property settlement payment of $37,000 to the wife.  We remand to the district court for entry of any orders needed to effectuate the modification, including orders to protect the children’s ownership interests in the LLC.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, David A. Lester, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (16 pages)

            After Sibley State Bank’s foreclosure action, the district court directed the Osceola County Sheriff to sell two farm parcels mortgaged by the Braaksma family.  After the sale of the real estate, the Braaksmas assigned their redemption rights to Robert Zylstra, who tendered a check for the exact sales amount to the clerk of court a day before the end of the redemption period, intending to redeem both parcels without adding cost or interest.  Sibley State Bank then obtained a district court order stating the redemption failed because Zylstra did not pay the redemption amount in full within the one-year redemption period. Zylstra argues the interest rate used was incorrect and the payment was sufficient to redeem at least one property.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Zylstra included no interest or other costs in the payoff, the redemption failed.  Also, because Zylstra did not indicate to the clerk of court to which property the funds should be applied, redemption for one property alone also fails.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., May, J., and Scott, S.J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (3 pages)

Joseph Jackson appeals his conviction of possession of contraband in a correctional institution, arguing the sentencing court erroneously concluded he was being sentenced “for a crime committed while confined in a detention facility or penal institution,” and as such ordering he serve his sentence consecutively to his already existing sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the sentence imposed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. Van Marel and James B. Malloy, District Associate Judges.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., May, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J. (6 pages)

            Alan Kuuttila appeals his convictions and sentences for three charges of possession of a controlled substance.  OPINION HOLDS: There is no compelling reason to overrule the line of cases holding a person has no reasonable expectation to privacy with regard to the contents of garbage left for collection.  Because items found in the trash outside Kuuttila’s residence significantly corroborated information that Kuuttila was selling drugs from his apartment and provided probable cause to support a search warrant, we affirm the order denying Kuuttila’s motion to suppress evidence.  We affirm Kuuttila’s convictions but vacate the sentencing order to the extent it contained a clerical error and determined Kuuttila’s ability to pay undetermined amounts of restitution and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Randy V. Hefner, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (13 pages)

            Nicole Adams appeals and Long Branch Maintenance Corp. (LBMC) cross-appeals the district court ruling denying Adams’s claim of property damage, entering a declaratory judgment, and imposing judgment in favor of the corporation based on unjust enrichment.  OPINION HOLDS: On Adams’s appeal, we affirm the denial of her property-damage claim and the finding she was a member of LBMC after it recorded the Agreement on September 22, 2014.  However, we reverse the district court’s grant of judgment in favor on LBMC based on unjust enrichment due to the express contract covering membership assessments.  On LBMC’s cross-appeal, we find no error in the court’s failure to address the assessments in the declaratory judgment, and we affirm the declaratory judgment as written.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Todd A. Hensley, District Associate Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Daniel Harden appeals following his guilty pleas to aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) second offense.  Harden argues “the sentencing order followed a template, a boilerplate form,” which “tells us nothing about how the district court arrived at a particular sentence in a particular case.”  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court’s statement of reasons for the sentences imposed reflects an abuse of discretion.  We affirm Harden’s convictions but vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing.