Opinion
No. 2-434 / 01-1927.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, WILLIAM THOMAS, Judge.
Paulette Hall appeals a district court ruling granting David Hall's application to enforce settlement modifying the custody provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Guy Booth, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
John C. Wagner and Jeffrey Ritchie of John C. Wagner Law Offices, P.C., Amana, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
Paulette Hall appeals a district court ruling granting David Hall's application to enforce settlement modifying the custody provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. We affirm.
Paulette and David Hall were divorced on November 4, 1998. Pursuant to the dissolution decree, Paulette was awarded physical care of the parties' two minor children, Rachel and Spencer. On September 5, 2000, David filed a petition to modify the decree requesting physical care of Spencer.
Trial began on June 13, 2001 before Judge Lynn Brady. On the second day of trial, the parties indicated they had reached a settlement agreement. The terms of the agreement were dictated into the record. Both parties unequivocally stated to the court that the recitation was acceptable. Judge Brady recommended David's counsel draft a stipulation and order. A draft was prepared; however, the parties disputed its contents, exchanging approximately six proposed stipulation agreements.
On August 2, 2001, David filed an application to enforce settlement. Because of health problems suffered by Judge Brady, the hearing on David's application was held before Judge William Thomas on September 27, 2001. After continued discussions, a new settlement agreement was proposed; however it was only signed by Paulette. Judge Thomas informed the parties that if they could not reach an agreement, he "had little choice but to simply approve the agreement that had been dictated into the record and approved by Judge Brady."
On October 2, 2001, Judge Thomas entered an order indicating that the transcript from Judge Brady's court would be the final order of the case. Paulette filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) for enlarged findings and conclusions as well as a motion for new trial. Her motions were denied. On appeal, she contends the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a new trial because she disputed one of the terms of the settlement agreement as read into the record before Judge Brady regarding Spencer's living arrangements while attending high school.
Our review in an equity case is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Motions for new trial based on discretionary grounds are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Wagner, 604 N.W.2d 605, 608 (Iowa 2000); Boehm v. Allen, 506 N.W.2d 781, 784 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
Based upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Paulette's motion. We have compared the language of the stipulation dictated into the record with the language in the last of the proposed stipulations subsequently executed by Paulette but rejected by David. We conclude the differences between the two are not substantial. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in its determination that Paulette failed to establish any ground which would entitle her to a new trial pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1004.
We affirm the district court's order in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.