Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Christ Apostolic Temple, Inc. v. Sinegal
, No. 24-1896 (May 27, 2026)
Case details
Full caption
Christ Apostolic Temple, Inc., Dwight Reed and Jordan Reed v. Demetrius Sinegal, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Iowa (IA)
Court
Iowa Supreme Court
Decided
May 27, 2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Ahlers (J.) (unanimous Court)
1
IN
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
OF
IOWA
_______________
No.
24-1896
Filed
May
27,
2026
_______________
Christ
Apostolic
Temple,
Inc.,
Dwight
Reed
and
Jordan
Reed,
P
l
a
i
n
t
i
ff
s
–
A
p
p
e
l
l
e
e
s
,
v.
Demetrius
Sinegal,
Defendant–Appellant,
and
The
Kingdom
Church
Safehouse
#Unmuzzled
Defendants.
_______________
Appeal
from
the
Iowa
District
Court
for
Polk
County,
T
h
e
H
o
n
o
r
a
b
l
e
J
e
ff
r
e
y
D
.
F
a
r
r
e
l
l
,
J
u
d
g
e
.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
Demetrius
Sinegal,
Houston,
Texas,
self-represented
appellant.
Jim
Quilty
of
Quilty
Law
Firm,
Des
Moines,
attorney
for
appellees.
_______________
Considered
without
oral
argument
by
Greer,
P.J.,
and
Schumacher
and
Ahlers,
JJ.
Opinion
by
Ahlers,
J.
2
AHLERS,
Judge.
Demetrius
Sinegal
appeals
from
the
district
court’s
denial
of
his
motion
to
set
aside
a
default
judgment
entered
against
him
in
a
defamation
action.
1
Sinegal
is
self-represented,
and
we
will
consider
the
issues
he
raises
as
we
understand
them
and
to
the
extent
they
are
preserved
for
appeal.
In
doing
so,
we
note
that
he
raises
several
issues
that
were
not
addressed
by
the
district
court
and
do
not
serve
as
a
basis
for
relief.
2
As
we
understand
his
brief,
the
only
relevant
and
preserved
issue
he
raises
is
the
district
court’s
denial
of
his
motion
to
set
aside
the
default
judgment.
Following
our
review,
w
e
a
ffi
r
m
.
Iowa
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
1.977
provides,
“On
motion
and
for
good
cause
shown,
.
.
.
the
court
may
set
aside
a
default
or
the
judgment
thereon,
for
mistake,
inadvertence,
surprise,
excusable
neglect
or
unavoidable
c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
.
”
“
G
o
o
d
c
a
u
s
e
i
s
a
s
o
u
n
d
,
e
ff
e
c
t
i
v
e
,
a
n
d
t
r
u
t
h
f
u
l
r
e
a
s
o
n
.
I
t
i
s
something
more
than
an
excuse,
a
plea,
apology,
extenuation,
or
some
j
u
s
t
i
fi
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
e
ff
e
c
t
.
”
No
Boundry,
LLC
v.
Hoosman
,
953
N.W.2d
696,
700
(Iowa
2021)
(citation
omitted).
Sinegal
asked
the
district
court
to
set
aside
the
default
judgment
based
on
excusable
neglect.
1
A
default
judgment
was
also
entered
against
two
other
defendants—The
Kingdom
Church
and
Safehouse
#Unmuzzled.
Only
Sinegal
sought
to
have
the
default
judgment
set
aside,
and
only
Sinegal
appeals.
2
Sinegal’s
appellate
and
reply
briefs
contain
citations
to
cases
that
do
not
exist
or
do
not
stand
for
the
proposition
for
which
they
are
cited.
This
suggests
the
possibility
that
h
e
u
s
e
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
a
r
t
i
fi
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
h
i
s
b
r
i
e
f
s
.
I
f
t
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
,
w
e
a
g
a
i
n
“stress
that
self-represented
litigants
and
attorneys
alike
have
a
duty
to
independently
v
e
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
e
n
t
i
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
v
e
r
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
a
l
l
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
n
r
e
l
y
i
n
g
o
n
a
r
t
i
fi
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
t
o
o
l
s
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
r
i
a
l
o
r
a
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
c
o
u
r
t
fi
l
i
n
g
s
.
”
Luke
v.
Dep’t.
of
Health
and
Human
Servs.
,
29
N.W.3d
635,
636
(Iowa
Ct.
App.
2025).
3
When
considering
whether
Sinegal
established
excusable
neglect,
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
o
f
S
i
n
e
g
a
l
’
s
fi
l
i
n
g
s
,
“
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
[
h
e
]
intended
to
defend,
whether
[he]
asserted
a
meritorious
defense
in
good
faith,
a
n
d
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
[
h
e
]
i
g
n
o
r
e
d
o
r
w
i
l
l
f
u
l
l
y
d
e
fi
e
d
t
h
e
r
u
l
e
s
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
.
”
Id.
The
district
court’s
ruling
took
these
considerations
into
account,
and
we
agree
w
i
t
h
i
t
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
.
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
,
w
e
a
ffi
r
m
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
opinion.
Iowa
Ct.
R.
21.26(1)(d)(e)
(authorizing
memorandum
opinions
when
“[a]
full
opinion
would
not
augment
or
clarify
existing
case
law”).
AFFIRMED.
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access