Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Armstrong v. Armstrong

Court of Appeal of Iowa

May 30, 2013

WILLIAM A. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARGARET J. ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Dale E. Ruigh, Judge.

         William Armstrong appeals the district court's order denying various motions filed by the parties.

          John F. Fatino and Erik S. Fisk of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

          Robert W. Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, for appellee.

          Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.

          VAITHESWARAN, J.

         Siblings William and Margaret Armstrong were embroiled in more than five years of contentious litigation over the division of eight family albums. In 2008, a court-appointed master adopted verbatim William's proposed findings on the disposition of the albums. In a July 17, 2009 "judgment entry, " the district court found that the master's findings appeared "to have been accepted without objection by both factions." The court "confirmed" the master's disposition "by judgment."

         The judgment entry did not end the feud; the siblings continued to battle over when, where, and how to review, divide, copy, and transfer portions of the albums. The master issued more findings that were not ratified by the court.

         In 2012, the district court filed what William characterizes as an "omnibus" ruling. The court ruled that "[t]he Judgment Entry filed on or about July 17, 2009, remains in full force and effect with regard to partition of the above-described personal property." Among other things, the court denied William's motion to confirm the master's subsequent findings and denied his request for sanctions against Margaret. William appealed those portions of the ruling.

         We have considered the issues William raises under the appropriate standards of review applicable to each issue. No useful purpose would be served by belaboring those issues. Suffice it to say that the district court correctly applied the relevant law. The challenged portions of the 2012 ruling are affirmed.

         AFFIRMED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.