Lonnie Kay Milbrath v. Iowa District Court for Boone County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0651
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

Lonnie Kay Milbrath,
Plaintiff,
v.
Iowa District Court for Boone County,
Defendant.
_______________

Certiorari from the Iowa District Court for Boone County,
The Honorable Ashley Beisch, Judge.
_______________

WRIT ANNULLED
_______________

Erin Carr of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, attorney for plaintiff.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Benjamin Parrott, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for defendant.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Lonnie Kay Milbrath seeks certiorari relief from her contempt finding
for violating a no-contact order (NCO). She argues there was insufficient
evidence that she contacted the victim. Upon our review, we annul the writ
of certiorari.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In February 2020, Milbrath pleaded guilty to first-degree harassment
for sending her daughter threatening text messages. Milbrath was granted a
deferred judgment and the district court entered a NCO prohibiting Milbrath
from contacting her ex-husband and their daughter. The NCO remained in
effect until February 6, 2025.

In January 2025, Milbrath sent her ex-husband a Facebook message.
Her ex-husband reported the message to the police. Investigating officers
determined the Facebook page contained the name, personal information,
and photographs of Milbrath. Law enforcement also determined the account
was updated in December 2024. Based on this, investigators filed a criminal
complaint alleging Milbrath had violated the NCO. The district court set a
contempt hearing.

At the contempt hearing, Milbrath testified in her own defense. She
claimed her phone was stolen and testified she could not remember the login
information for the Facebook account. She admitted she knew there was a
NCO in effect in January 2025. And she acknowledged the Facebook account
was hers but argued she did not send the message.

The district court rejected this argument and found Milbrath guilty of
violating of a NCO under Iowa Code section 664A.7(1) (2025). And the
district court imposed a seven-day jail sentence for the violation. Milbrath

2
petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The supreme court granted the writ and
transferred the case to us.

DISCUSSION
Milbrath argues the evidence is insufficient to support the contempt
finding. We generally review certiorari actions for correction of errors at law.
Spitz v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 881 N.W.2d 456, 464 (Iowa 2016). On review of a
contempt ruling, this court must determine whether substantial evidence
exists that would “convince a rational trier of fact that the alleged contemner
is guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Christensen v. Iowa Dist.
Ct., 578 N.W.2d 675, 678 (Iowa 1998) (citation omitted). In reviewing a
contempt finding, we examine the evidence “to ensure that proper proof—
substantial evidence—supports the judgment of contempt.” Ervin v. Iowa
Dist. Ct., 495 N.W.2d 742, 744 (Iowa 1993). Substantial evidence is evidence
that could convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty of
contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 744–45.

A violation of a NCO is subject to contempt proceedings. Iowa Code
§ 664A.7. The party alleging contempt has the burden to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the alleged contemner willfully failed to perform a duty
imposed by a court order. Ary v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 735 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa
2007). Disobedience is willful if one acts intentionally and deliberately with
a bad purpose, wantonly and in disregard of another’s right, or contrary to a
known duty with unconcern as to whether the contemnor had the right. Id.
Here, the parties do not dispute Milbrath was subject to the NCO, so we
confine our review to whether she willfully violated it.

3
Upon our review, we find there is substantial evidence to support the
district court’s finding that Milbrath willfully violated the NCO.

The protected party received a Facebook message from an account
bearing the name and photograph of Milbrath. The message was accepted
into evidence, as the State notes, without foundational objection. The
investigating officer testified that the profile was recently updated before this
incident. And Milbrath acknowledged that the Facebook account belonged
to her. Instead, she argued simply that she did not send the message. “It is
not our place to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility
of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the
evidence; such matters are for the jury. .” State v. Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d 247,
256 (Iowa 2022) (cleaned up). “It is also for the [factfinder] to decide which
evidence to accept or reject.” Id.

Then, Milbrath points to her testimony denying sending the message.
And the district court expressly found Milbrath not credible:
Hearing all of the testimony today, the Court finds that the more
credible evidence shows that Ms. Milbrath was the person who sent this
message to [her ex-husband]. The Court does not find her testimony
credible that it was not her. It is in line with what she had previously
contacted the family about. She indicated that this looks like her profile
picture and that her account ended in December of 2024, which is the last
time this account was actively updated. For those reasons, the Court
believes the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Milbrath
is guilty of contempt, violation of a no-contact order, in violation of Iowa
Code section 664A.7.

We defer to this credibility finding, given the district court’s ability to observe
witness demeanor and hear witness testimony. See Medhaug v. Iowa Dist. Ct.,
No. 09–1027, 2010 WL 2602170, at * 2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 30, 2010). So,
viewing the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

4
we find there is substantial evidence that Milbrath willfully violated the
NCO.

WRIT ANNULLED.

5