WINKE v. WINKE, 690 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa App. 2004)

No. 4-471 / 00-0864.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 26, 2004.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Daniel P. Wilson, Judge.

The defendant appeals from the district court’s ruling in a temporary receivership proceeding involving a corporation purportedly owned by the parties pursuant to the terms of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.

James Bernard Winke, pro se.

No appearance by appellee.

W. Scott Power and Brent Ruther of Aspelmeier, Fisch, Power, Engberg Helling, P.L.C., Burlington, for amicus curiae, Gerald Derby, temporary receiver in proceedings below.

Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ. Miller, J., takes no part.

PER CURIAM.

The decree dissolving the Winkes’ marriage awarded Marilyn and James equal ownership of Progas Service, Inc., a liquid propane gas business. Because of continuing disputes concerning the operation and ownership of Progas, the court granted the parties’ request for appointment of a temporary receiver to facilitate resolution of the parties’ disputes.

The present appeal arises from a district court order filed on May 18, 2000, which ordered an accounting of the business, ordered the receiver to provide business information to James, approved the receiver’s second supplemental final report, and approved the sale of certain assets to Jerry Potts. The court determined further proceedings should be held concerning an offer to purchase the business by Ben Winke.

In his pro se appeal, James raises the following issues: (1) a corporation is a separate entity; (2) Progas was not properly served notice in this case; (3) the court did not have jurisdiction over Progas; (4) Progas is an indispensable party; (5) Progas should be represented by a separate attorney; (6) an order was entered after the hearing before James could seek to bring in Progas as a party; (7) the ruling improperly modified the terms of the parties’ dissolution decree; and (8) only the board of directors of a corporation is authorized to sell assets.

Our rules of appellate procedure provide:

Each division of the argument shall begin with a discussion, citing relevant authority, concerning the scope or standard of appellate review (e.g., “on error,” “abuse of discretion,” “de novo” and shall state how the issue was preserved for review, with references to the placed in the record where the issue was raised and decided.

Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(f). James’s brief fails to follow this rule and does not state how any of his issues were preserved for appeal. We are not bound to consider a party’s arguments when the brief fails to comply with the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure State v. Stoen, 596 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Iowa 1999). A failure to follow the appellate rules can lead to summary dismissal of the appeal. Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 239
(Iowa 1974).

Furthermore, the issues raised by James on appeal were not raised before the district court. We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). We do not consider James’s arguments because they have not been properly preserved for our review.

We affirm the decision of the district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to James Winke.

AFFIRMED.