Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
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.
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 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.
MULLINS, Judge.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 18-1836
Decided: May 15, 2019
Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)