IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL JAY COONROD AND ANNA LEA COONROD Upon the Petition of MICHAEL JAY COONROD, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning ANNA LEA COONROD, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-840 / 04-1542
Filed November 16, 2006
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL JAY COONROD
AND ANNA LEA COONROD
Upon the Petition of
MICHAEL JAY COONROD,
Petitioner-Appellee,
And Concerning
ANNA LEA COONROD,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, L. Vern Robinson,
Judge.
Anna Lea Coonrod appeals the district court’s ruling dismissing her
petition to vacate. AFFIRMED.
Anna Lea Coonrod, Anamosa, pro se.
Aaron J. Thomas, Anamosa, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Michael and Anna Coonrod were married approximately fourteen years.
Michael filed for dissolution on April 29, 2003. The parties signed a stipulation on
August 27, 2003, and a decree was entered the same day.
Anna filed a petition seeking to vacate the dissolution pursuant to Iowa
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012 on March 26, 2004.
She requested a new
hearing based upon the grounds set forth in rule 1.1012(2), (3), (5), and (6). The
district court found she had failed to meet her burden under rule 1.1012(2), (5)
and (6) and dismissed the petition under those grounds. The district court further
found that Anna was entitled to a hearing on the ground set forth in
rule 1.1012(3).
However, upon that hearing, the district court overruled her
petition under this ground on August 14, 2004. The district court stated in part:
The court does not find that Anna has demonstrated that she
suffered from such an unsound mind as to warrant the vacating of
the dissolution decree. Clearly, she was under stress, but that is
not uncommon in situations where parties are dissolving their
marriage. She suffered anxiety and required medication for it. The
record does not indicate, however, that she suffered from such a
mental incapacitation that she was not aware of what she was
agreeing to or signing. In essence, the record in this case indicates
that Anna is unhappy with the agreement she originally made and
would simply like to go back and start over (or reconcile). Her
ability to represent herself shows how knowledgeable, articulate,
and competent she is.
The court finds that Respondent’s
application to vacate or modify the original decree should be, and
is, hereby overruled.
(Citation omitted.)
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and agree with the
ruling of the district court. The decision of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
