Dawn Marie Clemens v. James Walter Clemens, 15-1811

Dawn Clemens filed for relief from domestic abuse on Sept. 11, 2015; a temporary protective order issued and a final hearing set for Sept. 28.
The hearing was allotted 30 minutes; neither party objected to that scheduling beforehand.
James moved to present testimony by affidavit before the hearing but did not produce any affidavits at the hearing and admitted none were prepared.
At the hearing, testimony began ~11:45 a.m.; after testimony and witness disclosures, the court extended the hearing to 1:00 p.m., allowing limited additional witnesses; some of James’s witness testimony was cut short.
The district court entered a final protective order; James’s motion to reconsider was denied and he appealed, arguing (1) denial of due process from the court’s failure to rule on the affidavit motion and from time limits that curtailed his evidence, and (2) insufficiency of the evidence supporting the abuse finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s failure to rule prehearing on motion to present testimony by affidavit violated due process	Dawn: no prejudice; no affidavits were offered	James: court should have allowed affidavits as requested	Court: No prejudice or waiver — James had no affidavits and thus waived claim
Whether limiting hearing time denied due process/right to present a defense	Dawn: time limits were reasonable given schedule; court granted extra time	James: time limits and curtailed witness testimony violated his rights	Court: No abuse of discretion — parties knew time allotment, James refused continuance and invoked expedited hearing
Whether evidence was sufficient to support issuance of a domestic abuse protective order	Dawn: testimony and corroboration (sister) supported abuse finding	James: Dawn was not credible; claim motivated by custody aims	Court: Evidence was substantial; district court credibility findings entitled to deference; protective order affirmed
Standard of review applicable to evidence/credibility	Dawn: factual findings entitled to deference because case treated as law action	James: contested credibility merits reversal	Court: Action tried at law; review for errors at law and substantial-evidence standard applies; credibility findings upheld

State v. Redmond, 803 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2011) (erroneous evidentiary rulings harmless if no prejudice shown)
In re Marriage of Ihle, 577 N.W.2d 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (trial court has discretion to control trial conduct and time limits)
Bacon ex rel. Bacon v. Bacon, 567 N.W.2d 414 (Iowa 1997) (when trial is at law, district court’s factual findings bind on appeal if supported by substantial evidence)
Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 2001) (deference to trial court credibility determinations in domestic abuse proceedings)