IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARIE ALANA MOSER AND STANLEY D. MOSER Upon the Petition of MARIE ALANA MOSER, Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellant, And Concerning STANLEY D. MOSER, Respondent-Appellee.
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B. Clogg, Judge.
Marie Moser files a petition for certiorari from the district court's finding of contempt and denial of her application to show cause arising out of the terms of the decree of dissolution of her marriage to Stanley Moser.
Cami Eslick, Indianola, for plaintiff/petitioner/appellant.
Michael P. Holzworth, Des Moines, for respondant/appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Danilson, JJ.
Marie Moser filed a petition for certiorari from the district court's finding of contempt and an appeal from the denial of her application to show cause arising out of the dissolution of her marriage to Stanley Moser. She argues the district court erred in granting Stanley's application to hold her in contempt, and in failing to grant her application to hold Stanley in contempt. We sustain the writ and affirm the appeal; we find substantial evidence supports the district court's decisions as to Stanley, but we find the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Marie willfully violated the court-ordered mediation.
I. Facts and Proceedings.
The parties were married in 2007; the marriage was dissolved in 2010. The two have one child. Since the dissolution, the parties' interactions have been contentious. We have previously heard this case on appeal; we modified the original dissolution decree to provide Stanley be named the physical care parent. In re Marriage of Moser, No. 10–1059, 2011 WL 944452 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2011).
In August 2012 both parties were found in contempt of court for violation of support and visitation provisions of the decree. In September 2012, Marie again filed an application for rule to show cause requesting the court hold Stanley in contempt, alleging Stanley had denied her Tuesday night visitation on August 21, 2012, after she notified him of her intent to exercise visitation and denied her weekend visitation on Friday, September 7, when she sent her fiancé to pick up the child. Further, she alleged Stanley failed to make a payment to her pursuant to the deadline established in the parties' dissolution decree. After careful review of the record, we find the district court's findings of fact are substantially supported by the record and adopt its factual findings here:
Despite the Court's Order and the Ruling filed August 6, 2012, which ordered Marie to give Stanley notice by 10:00 a.m. each Monday if she plans to exercise the following Tuesday visitation, Marie sent an email to Stanley on Thursday, August 16, 2012 that she was going to exercise her visitation on August 21, 2012. Stanley did not show up at the exchange location on August 21.
In September, 2012, Marie and her fiancé, Wayne Hall, traveled to Story City to pick up [the child] for visitation. Mr. Hall entered the restaurant to pick up [the child] from Stanley and Marie remained in the van. Mr. Hall did not tell Stanley that Marie was outside in the van. Stanley refused to allow [the child] to go with Mr. Hall. Marie let Stanley leave and return home with [the child] without revealing she was present. Marie did not try to exercise her visitation with [the child] because she wanted to "prove a point".
The Decree filed May 18, 2011 ordered Stanley to pay Marie the sum of $16, 558.00 per year for ten years no later than 60 days after the Decree was filed. Stanley failed to pay the payment due July 18, 2012.
The evidence showed that Stanley's and Marie's attorneys were engaged in negotiations for the payment of a lump sum payment of the property settlement owed to Marie, and Stanley was ready and ...