In re Langholz
| Citation | 887 N.W.2d 770 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–0547.,15–0547. |
| Parties | Upon the Petition of Kent D. LANGHOLZ, Appellant, and Concerning, Harold E. Brumbaugh, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Jacob R. Koller of Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Laura A. Kamienski of Ackley, Kopecky & Kingery, L.L.P., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
A father filed for an injunction precluding communication and contact between his minor child and her former softball coach. After a trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction against the former coach that prevented him from contacting or communicating with the child, but allowed him to attend certain extracurricular activities and to be present in the home of the child's mother. The district court also sealed all records and its ruling granting permanent injunctive relief. The father filed a motion requesting that the district court allow for the redissemination of the ruling granting permanent injunctive relief. The father also requested that the district court expand the terms of the permanent injunction. The district court denied the motion, but allowed redissemination of the terms of the permanent injunction. The father appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we remand the case for a hearing consistent with the Iowa Open Records Act to determine whether the ruling on permanent injunctive relief should be sealed and its breadth. We also conclude the district court did not err in denying the motion to expand the terms of the permanent injunction.
Because the ruling in this case has been sealed by the district court and we must determine whether this ruling was correct, we omit the underlying factual findings and concentrate on the procedural history.
Kent Langholz (Kent) is the father and Angela Hagedorn (f/k/a Angela Langholz) (Angela) is the mother of K.M.L. and S.E.L. Harold Brumbaugh (Harold) is the former softball coach of K.M.L. In October 2013, Kent filed an ex parte application for injunctive relief, which the district court granted on October 2. The terms of the temporary injunction were as follows:
[T]hat the Respondent, Harold E. Brumbaugh, is enjoined and restrained from communicating and/or otherwise contacting K.M.L. and S.E.L. in any matter, including but not limited to, visiting any residence in which K.M.L. and S.E.L. reside and attending the sporting or other extracurricular events of either child.
As part of the temporary injunction, the district court also ordered “that the Petitioner's Exhibits 1–9 are received under seal and shall not be available to the public.”
The district court held a hearing on January 8, 2014, to determine whether the ex parte temporary injunction would remain in effect during the proceedings. During the hearing, the parties agreed on the following terms for the temporary injunction:
[A] temporary injunction is entered against Respondent, Harold E. Brumbaugh, and he shall be enjoined and restrained from communication with and/or otherwise contacting K.M.L. and S.E.L. in any matter whatsoever, including but not limited to, contact or communications through a third party, passing gifts, or attending the sporting or other extracurricular events of either child; provided, however, that the Respondent may attend the extracurricular events of his step-grandchildren, which may also involve K.M.L. or S.E.L. as a participant, and he may attend any game or event at any sports complex, provided that neither child is participating in the game or event which he is attending and he makes every effort to avoid visual contact with K.M.L. and S.E.L. at all times.
Notably, the stipulated temporary injunction did not prevent Harold from being present at the children's residence so long as neither child was present. The parties also agreed that the clerk of court would seal all documents except for court orders, decrees, and judgments.
Harold was mostly compliant with the terms of the injunction. However, during one of K.M.L.'s softball tournaments in September 2014, Harold was present to coach another team. During the game, Harold stood behind her dugout, walked by the dugout multiple times, and did not make any effort to stay out of K.M.L.'s sight. Kent reported that after the tournament, K.M.L. was not acting like herself and became withdrawn, moody, and quiet.
The trial on Kent's petition seeking permanent injunctive relief was held on January 27 and 28, 2015. On February 4, the district court entered its ruling granting Kent's request for a permanent injunction. The terms of the permanent injunction are as follows:
Defendant Harold Brumbaugh shall be enjoined and restrained from communicating with and/or otherwise contacting K.M.L. and S.E.L. in any matter whatsoever, including but not limited to, all written and in person contact or communications, all contact or communications through a third party, passing notes or gifts, or attending the sporting or other extracurricular events of either child; provided, however, that Defendant Harold Brumbaugh may attend the extracurricular events of his step-grandchildren, which may also involve K.M.L. or S.E.L. as a participant, and he may attend any game or event at any sports complex, provided that neither child is participating in the game or event which he is attending and he make every effort to avoid visual contact with K.M.L. and S.E.L. at all times, and shall be no closer in proximity to them than 100 feet. This injunction shall remain in place until K.M.L. and S.E.L. each reach the age of majority.
The district court ruling also ordered that the “ruling shall be sealed and shall be accessible only by the parties and their counsel.”
On February 13, Harold filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). In his motion, Harold requested the district court prevent redissemination of the ruling granting injunctive relief. He also asked the district court to eliminate the portion of its ruling that provides he “shall be no closer in proximity to [K.M.L. and S.E.L.] than 100 feet.” In response, Kent filed a motion pursuant to rule 1.904(2) asking the district court to expand its ruling to prevent Harold from being present at Angela's home and to prevent him from attending any games that either K.M.L. or S.E.L. were participating in. Kent also resisted Harold's request to prohibit redissemination of the district court ruling granting permanent injunctive relief.
On February 27, the district court issued its ruling on the 1.904(2) motions. The district court denied the request to modify any of the provisions of the permanent injunction, noting that the terms of the permanent injunction were “carefully drawn ... to address the dangers and potential for injury found by the Court throughout the record as a whole.” The district court found that the terms of the permanent injunction already provided the necessary protection for the children, and that Kent's proposed terms would be overly burdensome and would exceed what was necessary to protect the children.
The writ was ordered not to be sealed and to be subject to redissemination by the parties as necessary to enforce the district court's February 4 ruling granting permanent injunctive relief. The ruling itself containing the terms of the permanent injunction was to remain sealed. Kent filed an appeal on March 27, which we retained.
Generally, our review of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll Airport Comm'n v. Danner
...... Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co. , 214 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Iowa 1974) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, Tentative Draft No. 19, § 936(1)). "When determining whether an injunction is the proper remedy, the court must weigh the relative hardship to each party." In re Langholz , 887 N.W.2d 770, 779 (Iowa 2016). Courts must structure permanent injunctions so that it will provide relief to the plaintiff without "interfer[ing] with the legitimate and proper actions of the person against whom it is granted." Id. at 779–80. "In equity cases, especially when considering ......
-
Vaccaro v. Polk Cnty.
......To the contrary, we have held that the party opposing release is entitled to an evidentiary hearing first. In re Langholz , 887 N.W.2d 770, 777–78 (Iowa 2016) (remanding for hearing to determine confidentiality); see also Gabrilson v. Flynn , 554 N.W.2d 267, 274 (Iowa 1996) (affirming injunction to prevent release of confidential school records); cf. Calcaterra v. Iowa Bd. of Med. , 965 N.W.2d 899, 908 (Iowa 2021) ......
-
Ney v. Ney, 16-1323
...intervention is necessary to protect rights cognizable in equity that have been invaded or threatened with invasion. In re Langholz , 887 N.W.2d 770, 779 (Iowa 2016) ; Matlock , 531 N.W.2d at 123. We have previously recognized personal interests such as freedom from harassment and stalking ......
-
Estate of Cox v. Dunakey & Klatt, P.C.
...N.W.2d 305stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to this state ... or any branch [of state government]"); In re Langholz , 887 N.W.2d 770, 776–77 (Iowa 2016) (applying the Open Records Act to court records of a particular case); Judicial Branch v. Iowa Dist. Ct. , 800 N.W.2d 569......