JASON KOPIASZ and JUNE KOPIASZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. RAMONA K. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. RAMONA K. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JASON KOPIASZ and JUNE KOPIASZ, Defendants-Appellees.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-989 / 11-1244 Filed January 9, 2013 JASON KOPIASZ and JUNE KOPIASZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. RAMONA K. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________ RAMONA K. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JASON KOPIASZ and JUNE KOPIASZ, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, J.C. Irvin, Judge. Ramona Campbell appeals the district court s denial of her replevin action. AFFIRMED. Ramona Campbell, Turin, appellant pro se. William F. McGinn of McGinn, McGinn, Springer & Noethe, Council Bluffs, for appellees. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2 MULLINS, J. Ramona Campbell filed a replevin action against her daughter and son-inlaw, Jason and June Kopiasz, seeking to recover certain items of property left at the Kopaiszes s house after Campbell was asked to leave. The district court denied Campbell s claim finding that Campbell failed to meet her burden of proof that the tractor at issue was anything other than a gift to the Kopaiszes and failed to prove the remaining items were in the possession of the Kopaiszes. On appeal, Campbell asserts her right of discovery was violated when the court accepted an email sent from Campbell to June Kopiasz that was not disclosed prior to trial and was allegedly altered from its original state. She cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 in support of this claimed error. She also appears to claim the district court made erroneous factual findings and that she met her burden of proof. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the decision of the district court without opinion, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1203(a) and (d). 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.
