Что изменилось

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

Brett Wilkinson appeals from the district court’s order granting Lacey Schmelzer physical care of the parties’ son, B.W., born in 2024. 1 Brett was granted reasonable visitation rights pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement and a minimum visitation schedule. Brett contends the district court committed “reversible error” in admitting certain evidence while excluding other evidence and challenges Lacey’s credibility. Although child custody cases are equitable proceedings subject to de novo review, see Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re Marriage of Roberts, 954 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020), we still review evidentiary rulings in those cases for abuse of discretion, In re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464, 469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). And we “defer especially” to the district court’s fact findings “where the credibility of witnesses is a factor in the outcome.”2 Hora, 5 N.W.3d at 645 (cleaned up).

We first consider the evidentiary issues that Brett has raised. He argues the district court abused its discretion 3 by “improperly excluding critical evidence of [Lacey]’s stalking behavior while simultaneously admitting [Lacey]’s misleading testimony denying such behavior.”

Brett fails to describe how he preserved error on this issue. His “Error Preservation” statement within this issue’s argument section simply contains references to exhibits supporting his argument on this claim. And while Lacey does not contest error preservation, we have a duty to assess whether error has been preserved sua sponte. See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000). To preserve an issue for appellate review, it must be raised and then decided at the trial level. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”). To preserve error on evidentiary rulings, a party is required to object at the time evidence is admitted or excluded. See Top of Iowa Coop., 608 N.W.2d at 470 (“[F]ailure to object to the admission of parol evidence at trial prevents a party from assigning the admission of such evidence as error on appeal.”); Twyford v. Weber, 220 N.W.2d 919, 924 (Iowa 1974) (“[A] proper objection at th[e] time” evidence is admitted or excluded “is necessary to preserve the right to complain on appeal.”).

But regardless of whether Brett’s briefs were directly drafted by him or a faraway datacenter, he is bound by the same duty to verify his briefs’ accuracy and compliance with our appellate rules. See id.; Iowa R. App. P. 6.903. We are cognizant of Brett’s status as a self-represented litigant and hesitate to punish him based on dubious legal arguments. Yet, Brett consistently violated the same Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure over multiple iterations of his initial and amended briefs—even after being directly informed by our supreme court of the rules with which he was noncompliant. That failure consumed judicial resources and cost Lacey and her counsel unnecessary expense. However, because “Iowa has separate ‘Rules of Appellate Procedure,’ and they do not refer to or incorporate by reference [Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.413,” we cannot use rule 1.413 as a basis for a sanction or fee award as Lacey requests. See In re Marriage of Whiteside, No. 07-0739, 2007 WL 3376902, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2007). Even so, after carefully considering Lacey’s appellateattorney-fee affidavit and the ability of the parties to pay, and because Lacey is the prevailing party on all issues in this appeal, see In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260, 270 (Iowa 2005), we award Lacey all of her requested appellate attorney fees pursuant to the appellate-attorney-fee affidavit she submitted on November 17, 2025. All costs are assessed to Brett.