Patrick Alan Ney v. John Glenn Ney, 2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 26

Patrick filed a petition for injunctive relief (April 2012) alleging John repeatedly assaulted, trespassed on, harassed, and once broke into Patrick’s home; law enforcement responses were insufficient.
The brothers executed a Stipulation and Agreement (June 25, 2012) barring threats, assaults, stalking, contact, and entry onto each other’s residences; the district court entered an order incorporating the stipulation (2012 order).
In March 2016 Patrick sought a contempt order alleging multiple violations by John, including threats with a firearm; the district court issued an order to show cause.
John moved to dismiss, arguing the 2012 injunction was void because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code § 664A.2(2) (protective orders statute).
The district court dismissed, holding chapter 664A limited civil protective orders to statutes listed there, so the consent injunction was unenforceable; Patrick appealed.
The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding the district court had equitable jurisdiction to enter and enforce the 2012 consent injunction and § 664A.2(2) did not strip that equitable authority under these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had subject matter/equitable jurisdiction to enter and enforce a no-contact injunction between private parties	Patrick argued his petition pleaded rights cognizable in equity (freedom from harassment, trespass), met the injunctive three-prong test, and the court properly entered a consent injunction enforceable by contempt	John argued chapter 664A and § 664A.2(2) limit civil protective orders to specific statutory schemes (chs. 232, 236, 598, 915), so the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant or enforce the injunction	Court held district courts retain equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions in such private disputes; the consent order was within that jurisdiction and enforceable; § 664A.2(2) does not eliminate equitable authority here

Schaefer v. Putnam, 841 N.W.2d 68 (Iowa 2013) (standard for reviewing subject matter jurisdiction)
Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 2001) (statutory conditions can supersede traditional equitable requirements)
Sear v. Clayton Cty. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 590 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa 1999) (injunctive relief generally invokes equitable jurisdiction)
Matlock v. Weets, 531 N.W.2d 118 (Iowa 1995) (standards and caution for issuing injunctions; deference to district court fact findings)
Opat v. Ludeking, 666 N.W.2d 597 (Iowa 2003) (recognizing harassment/stalking as rights cognizable in equity)
World Teacher Seminar, Inc. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 406 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa 1987) (validity of injunctions entered by consent judgment)
Usailis v. Jasper, 271 N.W. 524 (Iowa 1937) (equity may prevent repeated trespass and interference with property rights)
In re Marriage of Gallagher, 539 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 1995) (equity courts may fashion appropriate remedies)