Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 29
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Bryon Jones secretly placed a sound-activated recorder in his then-partner Brenda Papillon’s home and captured her conversations with third parties in January–March 2014. He was not present for those conversations.
- Jones used transcripts and audio of the recordings in child-custody litigation (gave them to the custody evaluator, listed them as exhibits, threatened to publicize them) and played recordings at home. Papillon moved out and later sued under Iowa Code chapter 808B for unlawful interception, seeking actual and punitive damages and attorney fees.
- Jones was served with a chapter 808B suit in August 2014, was deposed (invoked Fifth Amendment on some questions), but continued to permit use of the recordings in the custody case and kept them on his exhibit list until the morning of trial.
- The district court found Jones illegally intercepted Papillon’s oral communications, awarded actual damages and $18,000 in punitive damages, and awarded attorney fees. The court characteristically found Jones acted “willfully, maliciously and in reckless violation of the law” but did not explicitly find Jones knew his conduct violated chapter 808B.
- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed liability, admissibility of the recordings, and compensatory damages, modified the attorney-fee award, but reversed punitive damages for failure to find Jones knew his conduct violated the statute. The Supreme Court granted further review on punitive damages only.
Issues
| Issue | Papillon (Plaintiff) | Jones (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the clandestine recordings were admissible in Papillon’s civil damages suit | Recordings are admissible to prove damages and misuse despite §808B.7 shielding their use in other litigation contexts | Recordings barred by §808B.7; inadmissible evidence | Admissible: district court and court of appeals upheld admission for Papillon’s §808B claim (party to conversation may consent to admission in damages suit) |
| Whether Jones violated Iowa Code §808B (illegal interception/use) | Jones intercepted and used recordings without consent, violating §808B | Argued recording was made with consent or during therapy; claimed ignorance of illegality | Violation proved: district court findings of illegal interception supported by substantial evidence; actual damages awarded |
| Standard for awarding punitive damages under §808B.8 | Punitive damages appropriate for willful, malicious, or reckless violation; Papillon also argued general punitive statute applies | Jones argued ignorance of law/no knowledge of illegality | To recover punitive damages under §808B.8 plaintiff must prove defendant knew he was violating the statute (Iowa Beta standard). Court reversed punitive award for failure to make that specific finding but remanded to apply correct standard to existing record |
| Whether appellate remand/fees and other relief were correct | Sought full fees and affirmation of damages and punitive award | Contested fee calculation and punitive award | Court affirmed actual damages, affirmed remand to recalculate attorney fees and award appellate fees, vacated punitive award and remanded for specific findings on knowledge and amount; appeal costs assessed to Jones |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009) (interprets §808B and holds punitive damages require knowledge of illegality)
- Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C., 832 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 2013) (discusses purposes of punitive damages and stare decisis principles)
- Wolf v. Wolf, 690 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 2005) (standard of review for punitive damages)
- Citron v. Citron, 722 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1983) (federal precedent construing “willfully” as requiring at least a knowing violation for punitive damages)
- Shaver v. Shaver, 799 F. Supp. 576 (E.D.N.C. 1992) (declined punitive damages under federal statute where defendant lacked knowledge recordings were illegal)