939 N.W.2d 660
Iowa Ct. App.2019Background:
- Fishel and Redenbaugh were long-term intimate partners (12 years), with two minor children; they never married.
- Fishel alleged an off-and-on history of physical abuse and sought a civil domestic-abuse protective order including financial support under Iowa Code § 236.5(1)(b)(6).
- At the August 30, 2018 hearing the district court entered a protective order but postponed addressing the support request and later denied Fishel’s motion to reconsider support.
- The district court ruled § 236.5 does not create an independent right to support and would permit support only when another statute or federal law already authorizes it (relying on Iowa’s rejection of palimony).
- Fishel appealed, arguing the court erred procedurally (postponing the support issue) and substantively (misconstruing § 236.5).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by postponing the support issue at the Aug. 30 hearing | Fishel: court should have addressed support at that hearing | Redenbaugh: postponement was permissible | Procedural argument rendered moot by disposition; court declines to decide it |
| Whether Iowa Code § 236.5(1)(b)(6) authorizes a protective-order award of support independent of other statutory support rights | Fishel: § 236.5 authorizes the court to order the defendant to pay separate support and maintenance regardless of marital status or other statutes | Redenbaugh/district court: § 236.5 does not create an independent right; support only when allowed by other Iowa or federal law | Reversed in part: § 236.5(1)(b)(6) is permissive and allows the court discretion to order support even if no other statutory support obligation exists; remanded for the district court to consider support amount and appropriateness |
Key Cases Cited
- Slocum v. Hammond, 346 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 1984) (Iowa does not recognize palimony claims)
- State v. Childs, 898 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2017) (statutory interpretation focuses on text and the words chosen by the legislature)
- Hansen v. Haugh, 149 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 1967) (courts must not legislate; apply law as enacted)
- Moss v. Williams, 133 N.W. 120 (Iowa 1911) (apply statutes as written)
- Bowman v. City of Des Moines Mun. Hous. Agency, 805 N.W.2d 790 (Iowa 2011) (use of "may" in statute is permissive and confers discretion)
- State v. Lee, 561 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 1999) (discussing remand for further proceedings)