WILLIAM A. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARGARET J. ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-377 / 12-1614 Filed May 30, 2013 WILLIAM A. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MARGARET J. ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Dale E. Ruigh, Judge. William Armstrong appeals the district court s order denying various motions filed by the parties. AFFIRMED. John F. Fatino and Erik S. Fisk of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Robert W. Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, for appellee. Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, J. Siblings William and Margaret Armstrong were embroiled in more than five years of contentious litigation over the division of eight family albums. In 2008, a court-appointed master adopted verbatim William s proposed findings on the disposition of the albums. In a July 17, 2009 judgment entry, the district court found that the master s findings appeared to have been accepted without objection by both factions. The court confirmed the master s disposition by judgment. The judgment entry did not end the feud; the siblings continued to battle over when, where, and how to review, divide, copy, and transfer portions of the albums. The master issued more findings that were not ratified by the court. In 2012, the district court filed what William characterizes as an omnibus ruling. The court ruled that [t]he Judgment Entry filed on or about July 17, 2009, remains in full force and effect with regard to partition of the above-described personal property. Among other things, the court denied William s motion to confirm the master s subsequent findings and denied his request for sanctions against Margaret. William appealed those portions of the ruling. We have considered the issues William raises under the appropriate standards of review applicable to each issue. served by belaboring those issues. No useful purpose would be Suffice it to say that the district court correctly applied the relevant law. The challenged portions of the 2012 ruling are 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.
