Wendi M. Wendt v. Allan Madison Mead, 16-0928

In 2015 Wendi Wendt filed for a protective order under Iowa Code chapter 236; the parties stipulated to a mutual protective order without a contested finding of domestic abuse.
Allan Mead did not file his own petition requesting a protective order, but the district court entered the mutual order by agreement.
In 2016 Wendt sought and the district court held a contested hearing on a one-year extension of the mutual protective order; the court acknowledged there was no prior finding of domestic abuse.
Mead appealed the extension, arguing (1) the orders were invalid because no finding of domestic abuse was made and the court lacked authority to enter a mutual order where he did not file a petition, and (2) Wendt failed to prove a continuing threat.
The district court found Wendt proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mead posed a continuing threat and granted the one-year extension.
The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Mead’s challenges to the original mutual order as unpreserved and upholding the extension based on an objective continuing-threat inquiry and the evidence presented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a protective order/extension requires a prior finding of domestic abuse	Wendt: extension may be granted based on continuing threat evidence even if initial order was by stipulation	Mead: no protective relief may validly issue absent a prior finding of domestic abuse	Court: a finding of domestic abuse is a statutory prerequisite, but failure to have one raises an authority (not jurisdictional) defect that Mead did not timely preserve
Whether court could enter a mutual protective order when Mead did not file a petition	Wendt: mutual order was entered by stipulation of the parties	Mead: Iowa Code prohibits mutual orders unless both file petitions, so the order was unauthorized	Court: statute prohibits issuing mutual orders absent both petitions, but Mead failed to timely raise this authority defect on appeal, so he is not entitled to relief
Standard for extension of protective order	Wendt: must show by preponderance that defendant continues to pose a threat; inquiry is objective	Mead: contested sufficiency of Wendt’s proof that he posed a continuing threat	Court: statute requires an objective continuing-threat showing; on this record Wendt met the preponderance standard and extension was justified
Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded to Wendt	Wendt: requested fees under Iowa Code section 236.5(4)	Mead: opposed	Court: award is discretionary; trial court denied fees and appellate court denied Wendt’s request

Knight v. Knight, 525 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 1994) (chapter 236 proceedings are equitable; de novo review with deference to trial court)
In re Marriage of Kleist, 538 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 1995) (appellate deference to trial court’s firsthand observations)
Klinge v. Bentien, 725 N.W.2d 13 (Iowa 2006) (distinguishing lack of jurisdiction from lack of authority; orders entered without authority are voidable, not void)
Gehrke v. Gehrke, 115 A.3d 1252 (Me. 2015) (consideration of lingering fear and prior abuse in assessing continuing threat)