Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Travis and Alfronia Sisson divorced in 2008. The next year, Alfornia was diagnosed with an incurable blood cancer. In 2011, Travis filed an action to modify the divorce decree, and Alfronia responded with her own claim for modification. The district court (1) denied Travis’s request to modify the custody arrangement; (2) modified alimony by increasing the monthly amount, retroactive to the date Alfronia filed her application to modify; (3) extended the spousal support payments for the remainder of Alfronia’s life; and (4) ordered Travis to pay one-half of the medical expenses incurred by Alfronia not covered by her insurance plan. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that Alfronia established a change in circumstances to support a modification of spousal support. View "In re Marriage of Sisson" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the parents of A.M. Following A.M.’s birth, the hospital staff expressed concerns about the couple’s ability to care for A.M. due to Mother’s lack of interest in feeding the baby and Father’s “ability to safely hold and care for the baby." Two days after A.M.’s birth, the juvenile court granted the State’s request for the temporary removal of A.M. from Mother and Father’s custody. The juvenile court adjudicated A.M. a child in need of assistance, and the Department of Human Services developed a case permanency plan with the goal for A.M. to be returned to Mother’s home. The State later filed a petition for the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to A.M. After a trial, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to A.M. The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order after noting that this “was a difficult case,” holding that termination was in A.M.’s best interests. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law

Melissa and Scott Mihm entered into a stipulation and agreement for dissolution of their marriage. The stipulation included an agreement to a child support amount below what was provided by the child support guidelines (the guidelines). The district court incorporated the stipulation into its decree of dissolution. Scott later filed a motion to modify the divorce decree, and Melissa counterclaimed seeking an increase in child support. The district court concluded (1) there had been no substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of Scott’s child support obligation, and (2) the agreement, which was made by the parties with full knowledge that the child support was not based upon the guidelines, should not be modified unless “for the direst of needs.” The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the issue of child support, holding (1) the original child support order did not provide a proper basis on which to base a decision on modification of child support because it was not consistent with law or rules governing child support; and (2) Melissa showed there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the underlying decree, warranting a child support modification. View "In re Marriage of Mihm" on Justia Law

In an underlying termination of parental rights proceeding, the juvenile court concluded that while Mother, who was indigent, did not qualify for appointed counsel under Iowa Code 600A.6A, payment of the attorney’s fees at public expense was constitutionally required. The court subsequently appointed an attorney to represent Mother in the proceeding, and ultimately, Mother’s parental rights were terminated. The juvenile court ordered the State Public Defender to pay for the court-appointed counsel, but the Defender denied payment on the ground that the fees did not qualify for payment from the indigent defense fund. The appointed attorney sought judicial review, and the juvenile court subsequently ordered the Iowa Department of Management to pay the fees. The Defender and Department appealed the juvenile court’s appointment of counsel at public expense. The Supreme Court treated the appeal as a petition for an original writ of certiorari, which it granted as to the Department. The Court then annulled the writ, concluding that the juvenile court correctly appointed counsel at public expense to represent Mother in the contested termination proceeding under chapter 600A. View "Crowell v. State Pub. Defender" on Justia Law

Plaintiff fled her home in Decatur County to escape Defendant, her abusive husband. Plaintiff found a safe house in Howard County and filed for an order of protection within two days of her arrival. After Defendant unsuccessfully moved to transfer venue from Howard County to Decatur County, the trial court entered the protective order. Defendant filed his notice of appeal thirty-one days later, as the county clerk's public window had closed at 2:30 p.m. the previous day pursuant to a order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the venue ruling and protective order entered by the district court, holding (1) the court order closing the clerk of the court's public window at 2:30 p.m. triggered Iowa Code 4.1(34) to allow a one-day extension of the deadline to file a notice of appeal; and (2) Plaintiff satisfied the residency requirement for venue under Iowa Code 236.3(1) to obtain a domestic abuse protective order in Howard County. View "Root v. Toney" on Justia Law

Melissa and Heather Gartner were a married lesbian couple. Heather conceived a child using an anonymous sperm donor. The child was born during the spouses' marriage. The Gartners requested a birth certificate recognizing both Heather and Melissa as the child's parents. The Department of Public Health refused to place the name of the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage on the birth certificate without the spouse first adopting the child. The district court ordered the Department to issue the Gartners a birth certificate listing both spouses as parents but did not require the Department to extend the same practice to other married lesbian couples. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Iowa Code 144.13(2), Iowa's presumption of parentage statute, violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution because it allows for only "the name of the husband" to appear on the birth certificate; and (2) accordingly, the Department must presumptively list on a child's birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage when the child was born to one of the spouses during their marriage. View "Gartner v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health" on Justia Law

Wife filed for divorce from Husband in 2009 after a dozen years of marriage. The district court (1) ordered Wife to pay child support of $219 per month, and (2) awarded Husband a share of the marital assets in excess of $2.1 million and Wife a share less than $150,000, and ordered Husband to make Wife an equalization payment for over $1 million. The court of appeals modified the property division award by decreasing the equalization payment to $250,000, finding the district court failed to consider the tax consequences of the property division and thus substantially overvalued the assets allocated to Husband. At issue on appeal was whether the district court's award of the equalization payment was equitable where most of the underlying assets were associated with a farming operation. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the district court was correct in its calculation of the equalization payment and its order fixing the amount of child support. View "McDermott v. McDermott" on Justia Law

Decedent's last will and testament and her correspondence with family members included specific directions to bury her in a plot she had already purchased at a cemetery in Montana. Decedent's surviving husband, Appellant, sought to bury her in Iowa and claimed the sole right to decide because Decedent had never executed a declaration under the Final Disposition Act designating anyone else to make that decision. The probate court granted a motion by the executor of Decedent's estate compelling burial in Montana. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the operative statutory language requires enforcement of the surviving spouse's decision; and (2) therefore, the probate court erred in concluding that Decedent's wishes trumped her surviving husband's right to control disposition of her remains under the Final Disposition Act. View "In re Estate of Whalen" on Justia Law

The district court entered a decree dissolving the marriage of Steven and Diana Kimbro. To equalize the property distribution, the district court required Steven to make an equalization payment to Diana totaling $50,060. Steven appealed, arguing that the property distribution with the equalization payment was inequitable. Diana cross-appealed, contending that the district court erred by denying attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed as modified by reducing the equalization payment to $5000. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the court of appeals' opinion regarding the reduction of the equalization payment and affirmed the district court's calculation of the equalization payment at $45,468; and (2) affirmed the lower courts' decision to deny Diana trial and appellate fees. View "In re Marriage of Kimbro" on Justia Law

Wife asked the Supreme Court to determine the validity of a premarital agreement, the fairness of a property settlement, the sufficiency of the spousal support, and the denial of expert fees incurred by Wife's attorney in preparation of the case for trial. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision upholding the premarital agreement, the property settlement, the award of spousal support, and denying the expert fees. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the lower courts' decision concerning the premarital agreement and the distribution of property; but (2) vacated the part of the court of appeals opinion and modified the district court decision regarding the spousal support award and the expert fees, holding (i) Husband was required to pay spousal support in the sum of $7,000 per month until Wife's death or remarriage, and (ii) Husband was required to pay $17,050 in attorney fees for the expert services provided to Wife's attorney. View "In re Marriage of Schenkelberg" on Justia Law