Terry L. Huitink

This case involves post-divorce modification proceedings between Peggy and Randall Nielsen regarding child support for their youngest son, a judicial lien on Peggy's home related to medical expenses, and allocation of trial attorney fees. The district court used Peggy's earning capacity rather than her actual income to calculate child support, imposed a lien on her house for past medical expenses, and ordered her to pay most of her own attorney fees. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the court failed to make required findings before imputing earning capacity, that Randall was estopped by acquiescence from enforcing contribution to medical expenses after years of paying them in full without seeking reimbursement, and that the fee award was an abuse of discretion given the parties' income disparity and the outcome of the modification action; the case was remanded for recalculation consistent with these rulings.

family law

In State v. Corbett, Andre Corbett appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana, claiming the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained during a police stop and search. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and the Iowa Constitution. The court based its decision on the totality of the circumstances, including an anonymous tip about narcotics activity at a building with prior drug complaints, the officer's familiarity with the location and a known drug offender in the group, and the individuals' flight upon the officers' arrival. The stop led to Corbett's consent to a search that uncovered marijuana and crack cocaine. The court emphasized that these factors, combined with the officer's experience, justified the brief detention to investigate potential criminal activity.

criminal law

The case involved the termination of a mother's parental rights to her two minor daughters after the children were removed due to the mother's methamphetamine use and subsequent failure to consistently engage in substance abuse and mental health treatment services despite multiple opportunities. The district court terminated the rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (l), finding it in the children's best interests based on the mother's past performance. On appeal, the court affirmed, addressing claims regarding the children's representation and concluding no prejudice from any dual roles of counsel, with the primary focus remaining the children's welfare.

family law

This case involved Jeanette Dodd's appeal from the denial of her workers' compensation claim against Fleetguard, Inc., for a right shoulder injury she alleged was cumulative and work-related, manifesting around April 2001 while she worked as an assembler. The deputy commissioner and commissioner found Dodd's testimony on the injury's cause and date not credible, contradicted by medical records noting no known injury, and discounted the sole causation opinion from an independent examiner as based on her statements; the district court affirmed the denial of benefits. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding the commissioner's credibility and causation findings were supported by the record. However, it reversed the denial of reimbursement for the independent medical examination under Iowa Code section 85.39, reasoning that the statute does not require the claimant to ultimately prove the injury was compensable. The court remanded for further proceedings and split costs between the parties.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Brandon, the case involved the validity of a warrantless search of a married couple's home after the wife provided consent while the husband was present. Officers entered with an arrest warrant for the husband, who asked about a search warrant; they arrested and removed him without seeking his consent, then searched the basement and later obtained a warrant based on initial findings. The district court suppressed the evidence, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that under Georgia v. Randolph the husband's presence and challenge to the officers' authority rendered the wife's consent insufficient to justify the search, as the officers' response implied he had no right to object. The core reasoning focused on the requirement for valid consent when a physically present co-owner questions the search authority, distinguishing it from situations where the non-consenting party is absent.

criminal lawprocedure

In the dissolution of marriage between Vern and Sheri Berning, the dispute centered on the physical care arrangement for their young son Ethan following the couple's separation. The district court awarded joint physical care to both parents, scheduling it around Vern's railroad work shifts, and Sheri appealed this decision. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling after reviewing factors including the historical caregiving roles, the parents' ability to communicate and respect each other, the level of conflict, and their agreement on daily child-rearing matters, concluding that joint physical care best served the child's interests given the evidence presented.

family law

In this case, plaintiff Jacqueline Triplett sued the manufacturer and renter of a chair that collapsed during a work event, causing her back and leg injuries that required multiple surgeries and resulted in ongoing pain. A jury awarded her $725,000 in damages, including $296,000 for future pain and suffering. The trial court found the future pain and suffering award excessive based on the evidence of her medical history and reduced it to $100,000 (totaling $529,000), ordering a new trial unless she accepted the remittitur. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the jury's award was supported by evidence of permanent pain and that the trial court's reduction lacked a reasonable basis and amounted to an abuse of discretion.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Hall, Raymond Hall pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor after police discovered child pornography on his computer, and the district court placed him on probation while also issuing a no-contact order prohibiting communication and proximity to minors. Hall appealed only the no-contact order, arguing it lacked statutory authority under Iowa Code chapter 664A because the offense did not involve a defined victim. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the no-contact order portion of the sentence, holding that chapter 664A did not authorize it for this crime, but remanded for the district court to impose equivalent restrictions on contact and communication with minors as conditions of probation under Iowa Code section 907.6 and to clarify that incidental communication is permitted. The court reasoned that while sentencing courts have broad discretion to set probation conditions, the specific no-contact order mechanism was unavailable here and the communication restriction as written was ambiguous.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a father's parental rights to his five-year-old son, Zachary, who had been adjudicated a child in need of assistance due to neglect while in the father's care. The father, who has mild mental retardation, appealed the juvenile court's decision terminating his rights under Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d) and (f), arguing insufficient reasonable efforts by DHS, lack of clear and convincing evidence, that termination was not in the child's best interests, and failure to comply with federal and Iowa Indian Child Welfare Act requirements based on a late claim of Native American ancestry. The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the termination, finding that services were provided but the father made insufficient progress in parenting skills, the statutory grounds were met, and the ICWA did not apply because the father's vague and untimely assertions provided no reason to believe the child was an Indian child under the acts' definitions. The court noted the father's prior denial of Native American heritage, his inability to provide specific information despite being given extra time, and the timing of the claim after the statutory period for termination had passed.

family law

This case involved a tenant who sued her landlord after suffering carbon monoxide poisoning from a cracked furnace heat exchanger in her apartment, claiming common-law negligence, negligence per se under Iowa Code section 562A.15(1)(d), and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The jury found the landlord not negligent under the instructions given, which combined elements of habitability into the negligence claim. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by failing to give separate, adequate jury instructions on the implied warranty of habitability claim, which requires landlords to ensure no latent defects in vital facilities at the start of the lease. The court also affirmed that the statute did not support negligence per se because it lacked a specific standard of conduct.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved an Iowa company's appeal of a workers' compensation award to an Illinois truck driver injured in Missouri, focusing first on whether the Iowa workers' compensation commissioner had subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code section 85.71. The commissioner determined jurisdiction existed because the employment was principally localized in Iowa, as the employer had a place of business there and the employee regularly worked in the state, then awarded benefits on the merits. On judicial review, the court affirmed, upholding the commissioner's interpretation of 'regularly' as not requiring a majority of work time in Iowa and finding the factual determinations on work patterns and the injury supported by substantial evidence under the applicable standards of review.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Benjamin Brockman appealed his conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense, after a motorcycle accident where he admitted drinking, showed signs of impairment, and had a blood-alcohol concentration of .115; the blood test had been suppressed pretrial for lack of valid consent under Iowa Code section 321J.6, but the trial proceeded on the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. The trial court ruled pretrial that any defense evidence suggesting Brockman was not intoxicated would open the door to admitting the suppressed test results, later allowed their introduction during the state's case-in-chief after the defense cross-examined a witness about the defendant's condition and possible concussion, and instructed the jury to use the results only to impeach such evidence. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the cross-examination was within the scope of direct examination and did not trigger exceptions to the exclusionary rule, while the pretrial ruling improperly restricted the defense on the central issue of intoxication.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the State appealing a district court's suppression of a murder suspect's confession and related evidence. John Bingham was arrested on traffic violations while driving his deceased aunt's car, invoked his right to counsel before Miranda warnings were given during a custodial interview, but after police attempted to contact his attorney and he expressed uncertainty, he agreed to speak and signed a waiver, making incriminating statements. The district court had suppressed the evidence, finding the waiver involuntary due to insufficient efforts to secure counsel and suggestive statements by police. The appellate court reversed, holding that Bingham's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated because his initial request was respected, police made reasonable contact efforts without coercion, and he validly reinitiated conversation leading to a knowing waiver before the interrogation proceeded. The decision emphasized a case-by-case analysis of anticipatory invocations of counsel rights in custodial settings rather than a bright-line rule tied to Miranda warnings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved beneficiaries under an irrevocable letter of credit issued by Wells Fargo as a supersedeas bond who sought payment after an appeal concluded but did not submit the original letter of credit document with their demand, as expressly required by its terms. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding substantial compliance based on an affidavit about local banking practices allowing a photocopy plus affidavit of loss. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, holding that letters of credit are governed by the strict compliance rule under the UCC and UCP 500, which requires exact adherence to the document's clear terms without looking to external practices or equities when the language is unambiguous. Because the plaintiffs failed to present the original as mandated, Wells Fargo properly dishonored the demand, and the court remanded for entry of summary judgment in the bank's favor.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved unmarried parents Angela Wells and John Montgomery disputing the surname of their infant son Bradyn, whom Wells had named after his birth; Montgomery filed a paternity action under Iowa Code chapter 600B seeking custody, support, visitation, and a change to the child's surname. The district court ordered the child's name established as Bradyn Briar John Montgomery, and Wells appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to decide the name and that the change was not in the child's best interests. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed, first clarifying that the dispute concerned an initial name determination rather than a formal name change, and that the district court had authority to resolve it as incidental to custody and paternity determinations under chapters 600B and 598. On the merits, the court concluded that the child's best interests favored the surname Montgomery, considering factors such as the parents' respective family ties, the father's efforts to establish paternity and involvement, the mother's plans to remarry and potentially change her own surname, and the young age of the child.

family law

In this landlord-tenant dispute, Seldin Co. sought to evict tenant Amberleah Calabro from a Section 8 subsidized apartment for unpaid rent after issuing a notice that included late fees, a maintenance charge, and other amounts. The small claims court granted eviction and attorney fees, which the district court affirmed. On review, the court reversed, holding that the late fees exceeded limits set by the HUD handbook, the lease and federal policy prohibited eviction for unpaid late fees, the landlord's application of payments to those fees was improper, and there was no evidence of willful noncompliance by the tenant to support attorney fees under Iowa Code section 562A.27(3). The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Elliot Wise's appeal from his conviction for driving while barred under Iowa Code section 321.561, based on an officer's testimony identifying him as the driver of a vehicle with a barred license. Wise argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to irrelevant testimony about a beer can in his hand and that the district court imposed an illegal conditional sentence that would automatically convert from consecutive to concurrent based on future compliance. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the irrelevant evidence did not create prejudice given the strength of the other identification and admission evidence. It vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the conditional sentence was not authorized by any statute and was therefore void.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gary Stewart's appeal from his convictions for eluding a pursuing law enforcement vehicle while committing a felony, third-degree burglary, and second-degree theft, arising from a high-speed chase after he was observed loading an ATV into a vehicle at a Honda dealership. Stewart claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object when the prosecutor insinuated he was lying or asked him to comment on a witness's truthfulness, and when the prosecutor questioned a defense expert about testifying mostly for criminal defendants. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that counsel breached a duty by not objecting to the improper lying-related questions but that Stewart suffered no prejudice from the misconduct, and that counsel had no duty to object to the expert cross-examination because the questions were proper and non-demeaning.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William Hager appealing the revocation of his driver's license by the Iowa Department of Transportation after he refused to take an Intoxilyzer test following his arrest for operating while intoxicated. The district court affirmed the revocation, and Hager appealed, arguing that he should have been shown the results of the preliminary breath test (PBT) before deciding whether to submit to the chemical test. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that there is no statutory requirement or case law mandating that officers provide PBT results to individuals, and that the lawful arrest itself provided an independent basis for invoking implied consent under Iowa Code section 321J.6. The court also noted that a PBT is intended only as a preliminary investigatory device without any duty to disclose its results.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a settlement agreement for repairing substandard terrazzo flooring installed in a building by subcontractor Janning, who was bonded by United Fire & Casualty Company as surety. After Neumann dismissed its initial lawsuit under the agreement, repairs were not completed as required, leading Employers Mutual Casualty Company to sue United Fire for breach of contract. The district court found United Fire breached the agreement, rejected defenses including mutual mistake, and held it liable for the full $847,390 cost of repairs and replacement. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that by assuming performance of the contract, United Fire waived its surety protections and became liable as principal without limit to the original bond amount of $147,864.

business & regulatory