IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0013
Filed September 13, 2017
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SCOTT ALLEN BOUCHER
AND CANTANA ANGELA BOUCHER
Upon the Petition of
SCOTT ALLEN BOUCHER,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
CANTANA ANGELA BOUCHER,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Chad A. Kepros,
Judge.
Cantana Boucher appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to
Scott Boucher. AFFIRMED.
Cantana A. Boucher, Cedar Rapids, appellant pro se.
Andrew R. Wiezorek of Jacobsen, Johnson & Wiezorek, P.L.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2017).
2
MAHAN, Senior Judge.
Cantana Boucher appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to
Scott Boucher, claiming the district court erred in failing to grant a motion for new
trial based on the ineffective assistance of her counsel, challenging the property
distribution ordered by the court as inequitable, and claiming the court erred in
allowing the dissolution proceedings to continue while a temporary
conservatorship was in place. We affirm.
Scott and Cantana divorced in 2015 after nearly twenty-five years of
marriage. They have two children, one born in 1999 and the other in 2010. In
2013, Scott filed a petition to dissolve the marriage and moved from the family
home. A temporary order was entered, ordering physical care of the children
with Cantana subject to visitation with Scott. After a trial, the district court
entered a decree dissolving the marriage. Cantana appeals.
Cantana complains she received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Cantana was represented by four different attorneys during the divorce
proceeding, which the court observed “contributed to the delays and the
communication breakdowns between the parties.” The court granted several
motions to continue trial filed by Cantana and her attorneys. Trial eventually took
place in November 2015, during which time Cantana answered in the affirmative
that she wanted her current attorney “to represent [her] in these matters.” The
dissolution decree was entered in December 2015; no post-trial motions were
filed by either party. Cantana filed a notice of appeal later that month.
At the outset, an issue not presented to the district court cannot be
decided for the first time on appeal. See In re Marriage of Gensley, 777 N.W.2d
3
705, 718 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (citing Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537
(Iowa 2002)). Here, there was no motion for new trial, Cantana did not present
this issue to the district court, and her claim with regard to counsel’s
representation is not preserved. In any event, even on its merits, “[t]he general
rule in civil cases is a claim of inadequate representation is not a sufficient basis
for granting a new trial.” In re Marriage of Johnson, 499 N.W.2d 326, 327 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1993). “It is a rule well settled, and necessary for the orderly and timely
discharge of the business of the courts, that a client be charged with the neglect
of his attorney.” Id. at 328 (citation omitted).
Cantana next contends the court “inequitably divided the parties’ property”
because the court “failed to take into proper account the economic waste created
by Scott’s behavior.” According to Cantana, when Scott “left the family, all bank
accounts were completely depleted and all mortgages and bills weren’t paid,
though Scott had been the only wage-earner and Cantana had never worked for
wages in the marriage.” The parties agreed bills were overdue at the time of
trial—expenses the parties agreed Scott had primarily been responsible for
during the marriage—but Cantana offered no evidence to support her claims that
Scott withheld money from the family or depleted the parties’ accounts. Both
parties were unemployed at the time of trial. And as the district court observed,
“Neither party presented an adequate record on which to make informed
decisions regarding the identification, valuation, and distribution of assets and
liabilities.” Even so, the court attributed income to Scott in the amount of $20,000
per year for child support purposes and ordered Scott to pay spousal support of
$200 per month to Cantana. Like the district court, we will consider the relative
4
disparity of the earning capacity and economic circumstances of each party in
determining an equitable property division. See Iowa Code § 598.21(5) (2013).
Upon our de novo review, and in light of all the facts and circumstances of this
case, we find the district court’s property division fair and equitable. See id.; see
also In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Iowa 2013).
Cantana also claims the district court erred in “allowing Scott to initiate
and prosecute the dissolution petition while under the protection of a
conservatorship.” Cantana filed a conservatorship against Scott in 2013, which
was dismissed at her cost five months later. Cantana did not raise her challenge
before the district court as to whether the dissolution proceeding could continue
while a temporary conservatorship was in place. Accordingly, this claim is not
preserved for our review. See Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537.
Upon our review of the issues raised on appeal, we affirm the dissolution
decree entered by the district court. We decline to award appellate attorney fees
in this case. Costs on appeal are assessed to Cantana.
AFFIRMED.