IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JANICE LYNN BUCKINGHAM AND LARRY EUGENE BUCKINGHAM Upon the Petition of JANICE LYNN BUCKINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning LARRY EUGENE BUCKINGHAM, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-710 / 12-1287 Filed August 7, 2013 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF JANICE LYNN BUCKINGHAM AND LARRY EUGENE BUCKINGHAM Upon the Petition of JANICE LYNN BUCKINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellee, And Concerning LARRY EUGENE BUCKINGHAM, Respondent-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, Dan F. Morrison, Judge. Larry Buckingham appeals the district court s refusal to hold Janice Buckingham in contempt for failure to comply with court-ordered DNA testing. APPEAL DISMISSED. Larry Buckingham, Bloomfield, appellant pro se. Janice Buckingham, Bloomfield, for appellee. Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Danilson and Tabor, JJ. 2 VOGEL, P.J. Larry Buckingham appeals from the district court s denial of his request to hold his former wife, Janice Buckingham, in contempt for refusing to comply with court-ordered DNA testing for the parties two children.1 DNA testing was ordered on July 14, 2010. Because that was not timely completed, Larry filed a contempt application on October 28, 2011. On April 27, 2012, the court issued its order denying the application. It held it had no jurisdiction over the parties son, who had reached age eighteen, to order testing other than on a voluntary basis. The court then ordered, The contempt action is dismissed pending petitioner s cooperation with the DNA testing. We review the district court s refusal to hold a party in contempt for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Swan, 526 N.W.2d 320, 327 (Iowa 1995) (given the contempt statute s permissive nature, the district court has wide discretion to deny a contempt application). However, an order is appealable as a matter of right only if it is a final judgment. In re Marriage of Denly, 590 N.W.2d 48, 49 (Iowa 1999). If it is a non-final judgment, it is an interlocutory appeal that may only be granted on finding that such ruling or decision involves substantial rights and will materially affect the final decision . . . . Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, the district court dismissed Larry s request pending petitioner s cooperation, which necessarily requires further action on behalf of the parties. Therefore, it is not a final judgment. See IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Iowa 2000) ( [A] ruling is interlocutory if it is not finally decisive of the case. ) (internal citations omitted). 1 Furthermore, we find this ruling does not involve Neither Janice nor the children s guardian ad litem filed a responsive brief. 3 substantial rights or materially affect a final decision such that it may be reviewed as an interlocutory appeal. As such, the district court s order cannot be appealed, and the appeal will be dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED.
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.
