Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over a postnuptial modification of a premarital agreement. The parties, David and Elizabeth Roberts, entered into a premarital agreement before their marriage in 1993. The agreement stipulated that each spouse waived their statutory elective share, but agreed that each would take one-third of the other’s net real property interests at the time of death. Twenty-four years later, the parties executed a new agreement, a "partial revocation" of the premarital agreement, which maintained the waiver of elective share but relinquished their one-third share in each other’s real property investments at the time of death. Elizabeth received approximately $15,000 cash and $50,000 in debt repayment or forgiveness from David, plus a monthly living allowance for as long as the couple remained married. After David's death, Elizabeth contested the validity of this partial revocation.The district court rejected Elizabeth's challenge and enforced the partial revocation. Elizabeth appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that under Iowa law, specifically Iowa Code sections 596.7 and 597.2, a postmarital amendment to a premarital agreement relating to inchoate dower interests in property is not enforceable. The court found that the partial revocation was essentially an amendment, not a revocation, and that Iowa law does not permit married persons who previously entered into a premarital agreement to enter into a new agreement during their marriage relating to inchoate dower interests in each other’s property. The court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding counterclaims made by David's son, Eric, who asked that if the partial revocation agreement is invalidated, Elizabeth should be required to relinquish the benefits she received as a result thereof to avoid unjust enrichment. View "Roberts v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The case involves a convicted felon, Adam Aaron Rhodes, who was charged with possession of a firearm, a muzzleloader replica of an antique firearm, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26(1). Rhodes argued that his muzzleloader, used to kill a deer, was not a firearm within the meaning of the statute because it was a replica of an antique firearm, which is excluded from the statutory definition of "offensive weapon," and federal law excludes such muzzleloaders from the federal definition of "firearm."The district court disagreed with Rhodes, finding him guilty of possessing a "firearm" under the common meaning of the term and the court's precedent. The court defined a "firearm" broadly to include "any instrument which will or is designed to discharge a projectile by the force of a chemical explosive such as gun powder." The court also rejected several affirmative defenses raised by Rhodes, including a void for vagueness constitutional challenge. Rhodes was sentenced to probation for a period not to exceed five years.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Rhodes's muzzleloader falls within the meaning of "firearm" in section 724.26. The court reasoned that the Iowa legislature declined to enact the federal definition of "firearm" and that the court's precedents apply the common meaning of "firearm" that encompasses this muzzleloader rifle. The court also rejected Rhodes's argument that the court should follow the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), when interpreting Iowa’s felon-in-possession statute. The court concluded that the Iowa legislature is free to adopt the federal exception for antique firearms but has not done so. View "State of Iowa v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

The case involves Dee Delaney, an employee who suffered two separate injuries to her legs in 1986 and 2019. The latter injury, which occurred during her employment with Nordstrom, Inc., required knee surgery and resulted in lymphedema in Delaney's lower right leg and foot. Delaney filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits against Nordstrom and the Second Injury Fund of Iowa (the Fund). She reached a settlement with Nordstrom and proceeded to arbitration against the Fund. The workers’ compensation commissioner found that Delaney’s lymphedema was a sequela of her work injury and that lymphedema is per se an injury to the body as a whole and not an injury to a scheduled member. The commissioner concluded that because Delaney suffered a sequela injury to the body as a whole, she was not entitled to Fund benefits under Iowa Code section 85.64 (2019).The Iowa District Court for Polk County affirmed the workers’ compensation commissioner’s denial of Second Injury Fund benefits to Delaney. The court agreed with the commissioner's interpretation of section 85.64, which led to the conclusion that Delaney was not entitled to Fund benefits because her lymphedema was considered an injury to the body as a whole, not an injury to a scheduled member.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's judgment and vacated the decision of the court of appeals. The court held that the commissioner erred in its interpretation and application of section 85.64. The court found that whether an injury results in the “loss of use” to a scheduled member or extends to the body as a whole is a fact-based inquiry that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that an injury resulting in the loss of use of a scheduled member was a qualifying injury under section 85.64, even if the injury caused a sequela injury to the body as a whole. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to remand this matter to the workers’ compensation commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Delaney v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant, Brandon Lee, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery, willful injury causing serious injury, willful injury causing bodily injury, theft in the first degree, and impersonating a public official. The charges stemmed from an incident where Lee, posing as a law enforcement officer, assaulted a husband and wife in their home and stole $50,000 from their safe.The case was first heard in the Iowa District Court for Linn County, where Lee was found guilty of all six charges. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for each conviction of robbery in the first degree, ten years for willful injury causing serious injury, five years for willful injury causing bodily injury, ten years for theft in the first degree, and two years for impersonating a public official. The sentences for the two robbery convictions were ordered to be served consecutively, for a total of fifty years, with a minimum sentence of thirty years before being eligible for parole. The remaining sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the robbery convictions.The case was then brought to the Supreme Court of Iowa on appeal. Lee argued that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for two counts of first-degree robbery, asserting that he did not intend to commit two separate and distinct thefts. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Lee intended to commit two separate and distinct thefts. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed both convictions and sentences for first-degree robbery. View "State of Iowa v. Lee" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Iowa was asked to determine who should bear the costs of a technology vendor hired to review a large volume of emails seized under a search warrant for potential attorney-client privileged communications. The emails belonged to a criminal defendant, Craig Juan Merrill, who was charged with multiple counts of ongoing criminal conduct, theft, assault, and misconduct in office. The search warrant stipulated that the seized materials would be reviewed by the district court to ensure no attorney-client privileged materials were inadvertently handed over to the prosecution.However, due to the large volume of emails and technical difficulties, the district court was unable to complete the review and decided to hire a technology vendor to assist. The question of who should bear the costs of this vendor became a point of contention. The district court initially ordered the prosecution to pay the costs, but left open the possibility that the costs could be taxed to the defendant at the conclusion of the case.The State of Iowa filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Iowa, arguing that the district court acted illegally in assessing the costs of the privilege review against the prosecution. The State contended that the judicial branch should bear the costs, as the vendor was effectively acting as a special master to assist the court.The Supreme Court of Iowa sustained the writ, ruling that the judicial branch should be responsible for the costs of the technology vendor. The court reasoned that the district court had voluntarily assumed the responsibility of conducting the initial privilege review and, when it was unable to do so, it was compelled to employ a third-party vendor. Under these unique circumstances, the court concluded that the judicial branch must bear the costs of the vendor it employed. View "State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court For Emmet County" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Randolph, who was injured after falling down stairs in a rental property owned by Aidan, LLC. Randolph sued Aidan, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe stairs. Aidan, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Sioux City, asserting that a city employee had inspected the property and declared it compliant with the municipal code. Aidan claimed that the city was negligent in hiring, retaining, or supervising the unqualified inspector, and thus, should indemnify Aidan for any damages owed to Randolph. Sioux City moved to dismiss Aidan’s claim, arguing it was immune under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j).The district court denied Sioux City's motion to dismiss Aidan's claim. Sioux City and Randolph requested interlocutory review, which was granted. The Supreme Court of Iowa was tasked with reviewing the denial of Sioux City's motion for the correction of errors at law.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Sioux City was immune from Aidan's claim under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j). The court reasoned that Aidan's claim for negligent hiring was "based upon" the negligence of Sioux City's employee in inspecting the stairs. Therefore, the claim fell within the scope of the immunity provided by section 670.4(1)(j). The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the dismissal of Aidan's claim against Sioux City. View "Randolph v. Aidan, LLC" on Justia Law

A juvenile, K.C., was charged with two serious misdemeanors: carrying dangerous weapons and possession of marijuana. As K.C. was 17 at the time of the incident, the juvenile court had initial jurisdiction. However, after K.C. turned 18, the State filed a petition to waive the juvenile court's jurisdiction. In preparation for the waiver hearing, K.C. hired a forensic psychologist, Dr. Tracy Thomas, to conduct an evaluation. K.C. requested the State to cover Dr. Thomas's fees, which were estimated to be $7,990. The juvenile court initially authorized the fees but later set a limit of $4,590, deeming the full amount unreasonable. K.C. filed a motion for additional expert fees, which was denied by the juvenile court. K.C. then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the juvenile court acted illegally by not properly determining whether the requested expert fees were reasonable.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with K.C. that the juvenile court's order was not supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that three of the four reasons the juvenile court initially cited for deeming the full fee unreasonable were no longer relevant. The court also found that the juvenile court failed to provide any explanation for why it declined to increase the fee award or reconsider its denial. The Supreme Court of Iowa concluded that the juvenile court's reasoning was based on an erroneous application of law and thereby abused its discretion.The Supreme Court of Iowa sustained the writ of certiorari, vacated the juvenile court's orders denying K.C.'s requests for additional expert fees, and remanded the matter for entry of an order authorizing the full $7,791.20 in expert fees for Dr. Thomas's work. View "K.C. v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the Terrace Hill Society Foundation (THSF) and the Terrace Hill Commission (the Commission) over the ownership and control of a collection of property and historical artifacts displayed at the Governor's official residence, Terrace Hill. THSF filed a petition seeking a declaration that it was the sole owner of the collection and an injunction granting it the right to access, itemize, insure, maintain, and preserve the collection. The Commission and its chairperson, Kristin Hurd, moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that it was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that Hurd could not provide the requested relief.The district court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the Commission, finding that the factual allegations in the petition, when viewed in the light most favorable to THSF, were sufficient to overcome the State's immunity from suit. The court reasoned that the Commission had willingly accepted possession of THSF's property and retained it after the expiration of a 1996 agreement between the parties. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Hurd and dismissed the claims against her without prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State can impliedly or constructively waive its immunity from suit when it voluntarily creates certain legal relationships that subject it to liability. The court found that THSF's amended petition alleged sufficient facts to plead a voluntary bailment, a legal relationship sounding in contract, which impliedly waived the State's sovereign immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Hurd without prejudice, rejecting her argument that the claims should have been dismissed with prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Terrace Hill Society Foundation v. Terrace Hill Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed a case involving a dispute between the University of Iowa and Modern Piping, Inc., a mechanical contractor. The dispute arose during the construction of the University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital. Modern Piping sought to arbitrate some delay disputes, but the University obtained a temporary injunction preventing arbitration. Modern Piping successfully had the injunction dissolved and sought to recover not only the fees and costs it incurred in doing so, but also restitution for the University's wrongful injunction.The district court initially granted the University an ex parte temporary injunction against Modern Piping, preventing arbitration of specific disputes. Modern Piping intervened and successfully had the injunction dissolved. The University appealed this decision but was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the parties arbitrated the original disputes, resulting in the University paying Modern Piping over $16 million pursuant to the arbitration award.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the restitution awarded to Modern Piping was not a proper remedy for a claim for wrongful injunction and could not stand. The court affirmed the $21,784.50 award to Modern Piping for fees and costs but reversed the $12,784,177.00 award for restitution. The court found that Modern Piping's claim for restitution was not directly correlated to the injunction, and therefore, it was not entitled to recover restitution in the form of a broad-reaching unjust enrichment claim. The case was remanded for entry of an order consistent with this directive. View "The University of Iowa v. Modern Piping, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around the Kirkwood Institute's request for public records from the Office of the Auditor of State in Iowa. The Institute sought emails between the Auditor's office and two investigative reporters. The Auditor's office withheld ten email chains, citing Iowa Code § 11.42 and § 22.7(18), which protect certain types of information. Kirkwood sued, arguing that the Auditor's office failed to show that these exceptions applied to the withheld emails. Additionally, Kirkwood claimed that the Auditor's office failed to disclose an eleventh email chain that had been quoted in a reporter's blog.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Auditor's office, holding that the ten email chains were exempt from production and that no violation occurred with the late turnover of the eleventh email chain. Kirkwood appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. The court found that there was a factual issue as to whether the delay in producing the eleventh email was reasonable. It also found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Auditor's office's withholding of nine emails under § 11.42, as it was not immediately apparent that these emails were received in the course of an audit or examination. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the tenth email withheld under § 22.7(18), agreeing that it fell within the exception created in this statute. View "Kirkwood Institute, Inc. v. Sand" on Justia Law