In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Louise F. Kachel

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1347
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

In the Matter of the Guardianship and Conservatorship of Louise F.
Kachel
Maria L. Kachel,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Katie Ranes, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf & McCormack Law Firm, LLP,
Des Moines, attorney for appellant.

Katelyn J. Kurt of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines,
attorney for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J.
Opinion by Vogel, S.J.

1
VOGEL, Senior Judge.

A daughter appeals a district court order compelling her to cover all
fees and costs associated with a petition to establish a guardianship and
conservatorship for her mother, which she filed and then voluntarily
dismissed two weeks later. Because good cause supports the court’s fee order,
we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings.

On July 15, 2024, Maria Kachel petitioned to establish an emergency
temporary guardianship and conservatorship for her mother, Louise. Maria
was concerned about Louise’s cognitive decline and requested the court
appoint her as Louise’s guardian and conservator. The district court declined
to temporarily appoint a guardian and conservator, finding no emergency
circumstances were present. Instead, it appointed an attorney to represent
Louise and set the matter for hearing. See generally Iowa Code § 633.561
(2024).

Louise’s attorney then tried to obtain Louise’s contact information,
but Maria rebuffed those efforts. As a result, Louise was never contacted by
counsel and it is unclear whether she ever knew of this action. On July 31,
Maria voluntarily dismissed the petition. Two days later, Maria’s attorney
moved to recoup roughly $5,500 in attorney fees and expenses—later
reduced to $4,015 by the court—and asked Louise to pay them. Louise’s
attorney, in turn, sought $400 in fees.1

1
The court visitor also requested $300 in fees. After the hearing, the district court
reduced Louise’s attorney fees to $300.

2
The court held a hearing on the fee issue. During the hearing, Maria
asserted that she withdrew the petition after speaking with Louise and
deciding her mental state had improved. Maria further asserted that she had
informed Louise of this action, though emails confirmed that Maria never
provided Louise’s attorney with any contact information and thus counsel
was never able to speak with or interview Louise.

After the hearing, the court ordered Maria to cover all fees and costs,
totaling $4,615. The court reasoned that Maria “was not cooperative in
providing contact information” to Louise’s attorney. Her refusal to disclose
Louise’s information and subsequent voluntary dismissal provided “good
cause to assess fees to” Maria. As well, the court found “that, under the
circumstances, it would be unconscionable to assess fees to” Louise.

Maria now appeals.

II. Analysis.

A. District Court Fees.

In guardianship and conservatorship actions, the respondent is
generally responsible for costs and fees, including attorney and court-visitor
fees. Iowa Code § 633.551(5). There is an exception, however, when a
petition is voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed. Id. In that case, the court
has discretion to assess costs “against the petitioner for good cause shown.”
Id. We affirm these fee awards unless the court abuses its discretion. In re
Guardianship of G.G., 799 N.W.2d 549, 554–55 (Iowa 2011).

We have little trouble finding good cause here. Chiefly, we share the
district court’s concern with Maria’s refusal to allow Louise to speak with
her attorney. Maria insists the attorney-contact issue was mooted upon

3
dismissal and thus should not have played a role in the court’s good-cause
analysis. However, while Maria represented that she told her mother about
this action, we see a material difference between speaking with counsel—who
can inform Louise of her rights and have confidential conversations about
options—and merely hearing of the action from the lay petitioner. Like the
district court, we cannot discern from this record that Louise was fully
informed of the existence, nature, or stakes of this proceeding. As a result,
we agree it would be exceedingly unfair to require Louise to cover the costs—
to the tune of over $4,000—of an action that was quickly abandoned and
quite possibly a mystery to her. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in
assessing costs and fees to Maria.

B. Appellate Fees.

Louise’s counsel further asks that Maria pay her appellate attorney
fees, which we have discretion to award. Id. at 554. When considering these
requests, we look to “the needs of the party making the request, the ability of
the other party to pay, and whether the party making the request was
obligated to defend the trial court’s decision on appeal.” Id. Weighing the
relevant factors, including the merits of this appeal, Louise’s counsel’s
obligation to defend the district court’s order, and the reasonableness of the
itemized fees, we award Louise’s counsel $3,100 in appellate attorney fees,
to be paid by Maria.

AFFIRMED.

4