Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bank acquired an apartment complex by deed in lieu of foreclosure the bank discovered substantial black mold in the units. The bank sued the builder, alleging, inter alia, that the builder breached the implied warranty of workmanlike construction. The district court granted summary judgment to the builder on the implied warranty claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bank may not recover under the implied warranty of workmanlike construction, as the implied warranty of workmanlike construction does not extend to a lender acquiring apartment buildings by a deed in lieu of foreclosure. View "Luana Savings Bank v. Pro-Build Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, concluding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial on the ground that an expert witness vouched for the credibility of the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when the expert testified that the child victim’s “demeanor was completely consistent with a child who has been traumatized, particularly multiple times,” the expert indirectly vouched for the victim’s credibility, thereby commenting on Defendant’s guilt or innocence. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Jaquez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of sexual abuse in the second degree. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial on the ground that a certain expert witness vouched for the credibility of the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred in allowing into evidence an objected to portion of the expert’s report to the jury, as the disputed portion of the testimony crossed the line and vouched for the victim’s credibility, and the expert’s statement prejudiced Defendant. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree. The court of appeals reversed the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not dismissing the case due to the State’s alleged repudiation of a plea agreement; but (2) abused its discretion when it found the testimony of an expert witness did not amount to an impermissible comment on the victim’s credibility, as the testimony of two expert witnesses indirectly conveyed to the jury that the child’s out-of-court statements were credible. View "State v. Dudley" on Justia Law

In 2013, a child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) petition was filed alleging that three minor children were in need. The guardian ad litem subsequently subpoenaed Mother’s therapist to testify at the CINA adjudicatory hearing regarding her mental health counseling of Mother. Thomas filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that the information sought was confidential where Mother declined to waive the patient-psychotherapist privilege. The juvenile court concluded that Thomas must testify at the hearing. Thomas appealed, and the Supreme Court treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court annulled the writ and remanded, holding that Iowa Code 232.96(5)’s statutory exception to the psychotherapist privilege in CINA adjudicatory hearings controlled in this CINA proceeding, and the juvenile court’s order enforcing the subpoena requiring Thomas to testify did not violate the confidentiality afforded mental health treatment under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). View "In re Interest of A.M." on Justia Law

After he was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), Defendant sought legal advice regarding whether to submit to a chemical breath test during a teleconference with a lawyer. Defendant asked for privacy during the call, but rather than tell Defendant that private, in-person attorney-client consultations were permitted at the jail, the arresting officer simply told Defendant that he could not consult confidentially with his lawyer while “on the phone.” Defendant subsequently took the Breathalyzer test. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the breath test results and convicted him of OWI. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) Defendant adequately invoked his statutory right to a confidential attorney-client consultation under Iowa Code 804.20, and therefore, the officer was required under the statute to inform Defendant that his attorney must come to the jail for a confidential conference; and (2) the remedy for such a violation of section 804.20 rights is suppression of the chemical test evidence. View "State v. Hellstern" on Justia Law

Fifteen-year-old D.S. was accused of harassing a peer during an after-school confrontation. The State filed a petition alleging that D.S. had committed a delinquent act, specifically harassment in the third degree. After an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court concluded that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that D.S. committed harassment in the third degree by means of intimidation. The court then adjudicated D.S. to have committed a delinquent act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that D.S. committed harassment, and therefore, the juvenile court erred when it adjudicated D.S. delinquent under the harassment statute. Remanded for an order dismissing the petition. View "In re Interest of D.S." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first-degree kidnapping. The trial information included a proposed enhancement based on Defendant’s prior Ohio conviction of a sexually predatory offense. A jury ultimately found Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of third-degree kidnapping. Thereafter, the district court ruled that the third-degree kidnapping conviction did not qualify as a sexually predatory offense within the meaning of Iowa Code 901A.1(1) and thus denied the enhancement. The court of appeals vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that Defendant’s third-degree kidnapping conviction was a sexually predatory offense because during trial the jury had found that Defendant had committed kidnapping with the specific intent to subject the victim to sexual abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a jury finding that the defendant committed kidnapping with intent to subject the victim to sexual abuse can serve as the basis for an enhanced sentence. View "State v. Walker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a limited liability company, contracted with Defendant, a utility bill review consultant. After Defendant reviewed four utility bills and informed Plaintiff it was entitled to a substantial refund for sales tax overpayments, Plaintiff terminated the contract. Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting a determination that it had no remaining contractual obligation to Defendant. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff’s liability under the contract was limited to services Defendant provided prior to termination, and no payment was owed to Defendant until Plaintiff actually received a refund. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant had a viable claim for breach of contract. Remanded. View "Shelby County Cookers, LLC v. Utility Consultants Int’l, Inc." on Justia Law

Tenant leased certain property from Landlord. Landlord filed a petition for a declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that it could have reasonable access to the property to show it to prospective buyers. The district court found the lease to be unambiguous and granted summary judgment to Tenant, concluding that Tenant could exclude Landlord from showing the property until ninety days remained in the term of the lease. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court, holding that lease provisions that gave Landlord the right to sell the property at any time during the lease term encompassed the right to access the property temporarily at reasonable times to show the property to prospective buyers. View "Alta Vista Props., LLC vs. Mauer Vision Ctr., PC" on Justia Law