Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court granted further review of this dissolution-of-marriage case to consider the proper distribution of a retired spouse's monthly pension benefits. The district court awarded the entirety of those benefits to the retired spouse. The court of appeals reversed and divided the benefits between the spouses to the extent they were accrued during the marriage. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision in part and affirmed the district court's judgment as modified, holding that the court of appeals did not err in ruling that the benefits should have been divided but erred in dividing the benefits without taking into account the remaining allocation of property between the parties. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of O'Brien" on Justia Law

A juvenile court terminated Father's parental rights to his two children. Father appealed, arguing, among other things, that the juvenile court violated his due process rights when it ordered him to provide a fingernail drug test after his termination trial. The court of appeals reversed, principally on the basis that there was no evidence in the record as to the reliability or the accuracy of the fingernail drug test, and that the record, including the fingernail test, lacked clear and convincing evidence to warrant termination of Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court, holding (1) the test did not violate Father's due process rights; (2) the evidence including the fingernail test was sufficient to warrant termination; and (3) termination was in the children's best interests. View "In re A.B." on Justia Law

After the State filed a child in need of assistance (CINA) petition, the juvenile court issued a temporary removal order removing Child from Mother's custody and placing her in foster care. Once the CINA proceeding was dismissed, Mother sued the State and two employees of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA), alleging the DHS social workers wrongfully removed Child from her custody and negligently failed to protect Child from abuse. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a social worker is entitled to absolute immunity when the social worker functions in the role of a prosecutor or ordinary witness; (2) a social worker is entitled to qualified immunity when acting in the role of a complaining witness, and for his or her investigatory acts; (3) alleged injured parties cannot maintain an action against a social worker under the ITCA where the alleged parties fail to exhaust the available administrative remedy prior to filing an action in court and where the basis of the complaint is that the social worker engaged in conduct functionally equivalent to misrepresentation or deceit. View "Minor v. State" on Justia Law

This case presented the question of whether an individual who made voluntary expenditures based on a mother's fraudulent representation that the individual had fathered her child has a cause of action against the mother for recovery of those payments. The district court granted the mother's motion to dismiss the action. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that such a cause of action may be pursued because it is consistent with traditional concepts of common law fraud, there is no prevailing public policy reason against recognizing such a cause of action, and Iowa's statutes do not speak to the issue. Remanded. View "Dier v. Peters" on Justia Law

At issue in this employment case was whether the State was immune from claims under the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in state court. The district court denied the State's posttrial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity after a jury awarded damages to a state employee based on a claim for violating the FMLA. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the cloak of immunity granted to the State precludes state employees from suing the State for monetary relief when denied self-care leave under the FMLA; (2) nevertheless, states are bound to follow the self-care provisions of the FMLA, and state employees who are wrongfully denied self-care leave are still permitted to seek injunctive relief against the responsible state official; and (3) the U.S. Department of Labor may bring actions for damages or an injunction on behalf of an employee against a state for violating the self-care provisions. Remanded. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law

Philip Vaughan and Arleen Wentworth divorced pursuant to a divorce decree that ordered Philip to pay child support until the couple's child, Allison, turned twenty-two if Allison continued a course of higher education. Philip later initiated the present proceeding, asserting that his child support obligation terminated when Allison reached eighteen. Arleene filed a cross-petition asking that Philip be required to pay the statutory maximum of postsecondary education subsidy under Iowa Code 598.21F. After both parties stipulated to certain facts, the litigation focused on whether the court should order Philip to also pay a postsecondary education subsidy and, if so, in what amount. The district court concluded that good cause existed for a postsecondary education subsidy and ordered both parents to pay the statutory maximum of one-third of the remaining cost of Allison's education. The court of appeals affirmed. Philip appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the determination that good cause existed for payment of a modest postsecondary education subsidy; but (2) reduced the amount awarded by the district court, holding that there was good cause to require Philip to provide a modest postsecondary education in this case.