IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1836
Filed May 15, 2019
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ALEXIS LANEIS BUMANN
AND CORY BUMANN
Upon the Petition of
ALEXIS LANEIS BUMANN, n/k/a ALEXIS LANEIS ANDERSON
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
CORY BUMANN,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Jeffrey L. Poulson,
Judge.
A father appeals the district court’s modification of the physical-care
provisions of a dissolution-of-marriage decree. AFFIRMED.
Amanda Van Wyhe of Van Wyhe Law Firm & Mediation Center, PLC, Sioux
City, for appellant.
T. Cody Farrens of Farrens Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Sioux City, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2
MULLINS, Judge.
The marriage of Alexis Anderson, formerly Alexis Bumann, and Cory
Bumann was dissolved in November 2016. By stipulation, approved by the district
court, the parties were awarded joint legal custody and shared physical care of
their child, M.B., born in 2014. Alexis has another daughter, born in 2013, from
another relationship prior to the marriage. In September 2017, Alexis remarried.
She and her husband are in the military. In December, Alexis’s husband was
involuntarily transferred to Kentucky. In January 2018, Alexis petitioned for
modification of the decree, seeking sole legal custody and physical care and citing
her plans to move out of the state as a substantial change in circumstances. Cory
contested modification and alternatively counterclaimed for physical care of M.B.
The matter proceeded to trial. In September 2018, the district court entered its
modification ruling, in which it ordered joint legal custody of M.B. and awarded
Alexis physical care, with visitation to Cory. Cory filed a motion to reconsider,
enlarge, or amend pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), which was
largely denied by the court. Cory appeals, alleging the court erred in not awarding
him physical care of M.B. and in placing too much emphasis on the value of M.B.’s
sibling relationship with Alexis’s other daughter.
We have reviewed the record de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re
Marriage of Hoffman, 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015). The issues involve only the
application of well-settled rules of law; disposition on appeal is clearly controlled
by prior appellate rulings; the written decision of the district court considered all the
issues presented in this appeal and we approve of the findings, analysis, and
conclusions it reached; and a full opinion of this court would not augment or clarify
3
existing law. We affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e). We deny each party’s request for appellate attorney
fees. Costs on appeal are assessed to Cory.
AFFIRMED.
In re the Marriage of Anderson and Bumann
Combined Opinion