Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-027 / 10-0962 Filed April 13, 2011 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROBIN N. MCFARLAND AND BURNS H. MCFARLAND Upon the Petition of ROBIN N. MCFARLAND, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning BURNS H. MCFARLAND, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.

Burns McFarland appeals the decree dissolving his marriage to Robin McFarland. AFFIRMED.

Burns H. McFarland, Ridgeland, Mississippi, appellant pro se. Randy L. Waagmeester of Waagmeester Law Office, P.L.C., Rock Rapids, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Danilson, JJ.

2

EISENHAUER, J. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Burns McFarland, a Mississippi attorney, and Robin Van Es, the owner of a dance business in Sioux Center, met in California in 2001 and married in 2004. In 2005, their son was born. Robin filed this dissolution action in 2007. describe the litigation as contentious is an understatement. To

Burns was

represented at times by two out-of-state attorneys and several Iowa attorneys. In May 2010, the court filed a detailed ruling awarding Robin "sole physical custody" of their son with visitation to Burns. attorney fees. Burns appeals the decree dissolving his marriage arguing the court abused its discretion in allowing depositions into evidence and in failing to grant his motion to recuse the trial judge. Burns also appeals the decrees custody and visitation provisions. We affirm. II. Standard of Review. We review dissolution proceedings de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. We examine the entire record and decide anew the legal and factual issues properly presented and preserved for our review. N.W.2d 677, 680 (Iowa 2005). III. Control of Trial. Burns argues the court erred in allowing Robin to enter into evidence the depositions of seventeen lay witnesses and asserts the live testimony of these In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 The court awarded Robin $50,000 in

3

witnesses should have been required.1 "We review this evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion." In re Estate of Rutter, 633 N.W.2d 740, 745 (2001). Burns acknowledges this case is an equitable proceeding and admits Iowa Code section 624.3 (2007) authorizes a court in equity to allow a witness to testify by deposition. See Rutter, 633 N.W.2d at 746 (comparing actions at law tried upon oral evidence in open court with equity actions where ,,[t]his requirement is relaxed"). Burns claims, however, "no true exceptional

circumstances existed" as required under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.704(5), which provides: On application and notice, the court may also permit a deposition to be used for any purpose, under exceptional circumstances making it desirable in the interests of justice; having due regard for the importance of witnesses testifying in open court. We note trial judges are afforded wide discretion over the course and conduct of a trial. In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232, 239 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). Additionally, trial judges control the presentation of evidence to Id. (recognizing courts are not

"avoid the needless consumption of time."

required to surrender courtrooms for "marathon productions" of witnesses). See In re Marriage of Ihle, 577 N.W.2d 64, 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (stating trial court has "to responsibly manage the stream of cases through the spectrum of justice"). Further, Iowa Code section 598.8(1) provides "hearings for dissolution of marriage shall be held in open court upon the oral testimony of witnesses, or upon the depositions of such witnesses . . . ."

1

Burns does not appeal the courts ruling allowing Robin to enter into evidence the depositions of four expert witnesses: Stacey Hofer-Ahrenstorff, Dr. Daniel Dress, Dr. Shawn Scholten, and Dr. Thomas Price.

4

Our de novo review of this case shows its background is a procedural nightmare. The initial salvo in the pretrial skirmishes was fired by Robin when she filed forty-five affidavits to support her request for temporary custody of the child. No purpose would be served by a lengthy and detailed illustration of

Burnss numerous changes/withdrawals of attorneys, his two attempted interlocutory appeals, and his efforts to ignore the courts orders concerning the length of trial by subpoenaing forty additional witnesses six days before a June 2009 trial date.2 The trial court originally allocated three days for trial and, after quashing Burnss subpoenas and again continuing trial, subsequently conducted an eight-day trial of live testimony in November 2009. Additionally, after trial the court gave Burns three weeks to submit additional evidence. We find no abuse of discretion. IV. Motion to Recuse Trial Judge. On March 25, 2009, Burns filed an application for rule to show cause and informed the court the Department of Human Services (DHS) had contacted him on March 18, 2009, and instructed him to have no contact/visitation with his son due to allegations of abuse. Burns requested "a ruling that determines the

authority of the DHS to circumvent this Courts current visitation order."

2

Burnss brief asserts he filed a "Federal Defamation and Conspiracy matter" where the witnesses who testified by deposition in the dissolution are "now defendants in a Federal Action." Burns devotes eighteen pages of his briefing and over 1200 pages of the appendix (4 of 6 volumes) to depositions he took in 2010 for this separate federal case. We consider none of this irrelevant material in reaching our decision. The court does not consider issues based on information outside the record. Rasmussen v. Yentes, 522 N.W.2d 844, 846 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). The record on appeal is comprised of the original documents and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript, and a certified copy of the docket and court calendar entries. Iowa R. App. P. 6.801.

5

On April 6, 2009, the court held a hearing on Burnss application and four other pending motions. The court informed the parties it had talked on the

telephone with the county attorney to determine if there was going to be a juvenile matter involving the family that would result in the trial court losing jurisdiction over custody of the child. See Iowa Code

Download IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ROBIN N. MCFARLAND AND BURNS H. MCFARLAND Upon the Petitio

Iowa Law