In re the Marriage of Tomlinson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0111
Filed December 3, 2025

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF KANDICE LEA TOMLINSON
AND SCOTT ALLEN TOMLINSON

Upon the Petition of
KANDICE LEA TOMLINSON,
Petitioner-Appellee,

And Concerning
SCOTT ALLEN TOMLINSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.

Scott Tomlinson appeals the denial of his petition to vacate the decree

dissolving his marriage. AFFIRMED.

Maura Sailer of Sailer Legal, PLLC, Denison, for appellant.

Ryan A. Mohr of Law Offices of Redenbaugh & Mohr, P.C., Storm Lake, for

appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.
2

GREER, Judge.

After Kandice Tomlinson filed for dissolution of marriage on January 12,

2023, she approached Scott Tomlinson with the necessary paperwork to conclude

the proceedings, including waiving the ninety-day waiting period and waiving the

requirement to file financial affidavits.1 Scott objected, yet he ended up signing the

stipulation and the waivers. At the time, Scott was in jail awaiting resolution of

charges for continuous sexual abuse of a child. The decree was entered on

February 2, 2023. In June 2024, Scott petitioned to vacate the decree, alleging

that it was procured by “fraud, duress and coercion.” After a two-day trial in May

and then July 2024, the district court dismissed the petition. Scott appeals.

On appeal Scott asserts that his case is no different than what occurred in

In re Marriage of Stanbrough, where fraud was established and the decree was

vacated. No. 99-840, 2000 WL 1157844, at *4–5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2000).

But, here, the district court disagreed, finding that:

In the present case, Scott was certainly aware of the nature of all of
the parties’ assets, although he may not have been aware of the
exact values or balances in certain accounts. This was not a
situation w[h]ere he was oblivious to the financial conditions of the
family or the nature of the assets they owned or debts they had. As
he reflected in the evidence, Scott’s reluctance initially and
throughout the conversation with Kandice on January 31, 2023,
focused on his refusal to pay her attorney fees. Scott[’s] own words
just prior to his signing of the Stipulation indicate that he was aware
of their financial situation as he himself stated “so, basically you get
everything, and I just get fucked[.”] This is not a situation like in
Stanbrough where the wife did not have information regarding the
value of the husband’s business, whether there were or were not tax
benefits, etc.

1 The parties were married on September 24, 2016.
3

On our de novo review,2 we agree with the detailed ruling of the district court, and

we affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(b), (d), (e).

AFFIRMED.

2 “[A]n independent action in equity to modify a decree based on fraud is reviewed

de novo.” In re Marriage of Hutchinson, 974 N.W.2d 466, 474 (Iowa 2022); See
Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. “In such cases, the court gives weight to the factual
determinations made by the district court; however, their findings are not binding
upon us.” Hutchinson, 974 N.W.2d at 474 (cleaned up).