In re Trust of Bennett

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: August 7, 2024
• Docket: 23-0895
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0895 Filed August 7, 2024

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARYANN BENNETT TRUST and THE BENNETT FAMILY TRUST

JOSPHE LOUIS COCO, SR. and S. MARTIN JOHN ERMELS, Co-Trustees-Appellants. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Katie Ranes, Judge.

Co-trustees appeal from an order denying their request to remove the third

co-trustee of two separate trusts. AFFIRMED.

Peter M. Sand, West Des Moines, for appellants.

Matthew D. Gardner of Gardner Law Firm, P.C., Urbandale, and Elissa M.

Hodges of Hodges Law, PLC, Ankeny, for appellee Iowa State Bank.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. 2

AHLERS, Judge.

Joseph Coco and Martin Ermels are co-trustees of two separate trusts—the

Bennett Family Trust and the Maryann Bennett Trust. Iowa State Bank (ISB)

serves as a third co-trustee for the two trusts. Coco and Ermels sought to remove

ISB as a co-trustee to both trusts. The district court determined that Coco and

Ermels did not establish any basis to remove ISB as a co-trustee to the Bennett

Family Trust, Coco and Ermels exceeded their authority when they previously

appointed ISB as co-trustee to the Maryann Bennett Trust, and Coco and Ermels

do not have authority to now remove ISB as co-trustee of the Maryann Bennett

Trust. Coco and Ermels appeal.

Our rules of appellate procedure require appellate briefs to include

argument sections containing (1) an error-preservation statement “addressing how

the issue was preserved for appellate review, with references to the places in the

record where the issue was raised and decided in the district court”; (2) “a

statement addressing the scope and standard of appellate review . . . , citing

relevant authority”; and (3) argument containing the appellant’s contentions

supported by citations to relevant authority and references to relevant portions of

the record. Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(1)–(3). The appellate brief submitted

by Coco and Ermels fails to comply with these requirements.

First, we note that their appellate brief includes several different arguments

intended to attack the district court’s order. However, their brief contains no error-

preservation statement to explain how error is preserved for any of these

arguments. Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(1). Second, while the appellate brief

does include a standard of review section, it does not include any supporting 3

“relevant authority.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(2). Third, the appellate brief

contains almost no citations to authority and those that are included do not support

Coco and Ermels’s contentions. “And failure to cite authority in support of an issue

may be deemed waiver of that issue.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3).

Failure to comply with these appellate rules can lead to summary disposition

of an appeal. State v. Lange, 831 N.W.2d 844, 846–47 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). We

are prohibited from “assum[ing] a partisan role and undertak[ing] a party’s research

and advocacy when a party’s failure to follow the rules would require us to do so

to reach the merits of the case.” Id. Given the lack of supporting authority

contained in the appellate brief submitted by Coco and Ermels, we would have to

undertake the partisan role of seeking out any supporting authority to meaningfully

address their appellate arguments. We decline to do so. See Inghram v. Dairyland

Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974).

Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Coco and Ermels’s appeal and

affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).

AFFIRMED.