Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re Rhinehart

829 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Rhinehart

4 Citing cases

  1. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Rhinehart

    827 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2013)   Cited 47 times
    Holding the Board did not prove a violation of rule 3:8.4(c) because "there [was] no evidence that [the attorney] was dishonest, deceitful, or that he committed fraud or made any misrepresentation"

    On February 13, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed, stating, “The district court was correct in not reopening that issue.” In re Marriage of Rhinehart, No. 12–0287, 2013 WL 530838 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 13, 2013). B. The Merrigan Fee Dispute. The second count of the Board's complaint involves Rhinehart's fee dispute with Andrew and Susan Merrigan.

  2. In re Marriage of Hutchinson

    974 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 2022)   Cited 3 times

    After trial and another appeal, the court of appeals held the district court did not err in rejecting the husband's request to reconsider "the issue of whether he committed extrinsic fraud when he did not disclose the contingency fee cases." In re Marriage of Rhinehart , No. 12-0287, 2013 WL 530838, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013). In In re Marriage of Stanbrough , the court of appeals held there was "sufficient evidence of extrinsic fraud to warrant vacation of the economic and child custody provisions of the parties’ decree."

  3. Upon the Petition Rhinehart v. (In re Rhinehart)

    856 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)

    This is the fourth time this dissolution of marriage case has been before our court. See In re Marriage of Rhinehart, No. 12–0287, 2013 WL 530838, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 13, 2013) (recounting the history of this dissolution case). Following the last appeal, we remanded the case to the district court to determine the “amount of fees applicable to the retrial only.”

  4. In re Larson

    881 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

    See Iowa Code § 598.21(5)(i) (“Future interests may be considered, but expectancies or interests arising from inherited or gifted property created under a will or other instrument under which the trustee, trustor, trust protector, or owner has the power to remove the party in question as a beneficiary, shall not be considered.”). The legislature added this language in 2007 in an apparent response to Rhinehart I. See 2007 Iowa Acts ch. 163, § 2; see also In re Marriage of Rhinehart, No. 12–0287, 2013 WL 530838, at *1 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 13, 2013).At the time of the dissolution trial, Craig had a remainder or “future interest” in the farmland devised to him in Hirner's will. The phrase “future interest” denotes “an interest in property in which the privilege of possession or of enjoyment is future and not present.”