IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1097

Filed April 26, 2023

FOREST HILL FARM PRODUCTS, LLC, GLENDA M. PLOZAY and KEITH L. 

KOCH, Individually and as Trustees of the KEITH L. KOCH AND GLENDA M. 

PLOZAY REVOCABLE TRUST,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.

JORDAN LANDSGARD and JESSE LANDSGARD, Individually and d/b/a 

LANDSGARD BROTHERS, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Alan Heavens, 

Judge.

Defendants in a civil suit appeal the imposition of an injunction. AFFIRMED. 

Christopher C. Fry and Alyssa M. Carlson of O’Connor & Thomas, P.C., 

Dubuque, for appellants.

Matthew L. Preston and Cara L. Roberts of Brady Preston Gronlund PC, 

Cedar Rapids, for appellees.

Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Jesse and Jordan Landsgard, individually and doing business as Landsgard 

Brothers, LLC, (collectively Landsgard), appeal an injunction concerning the

application of herbicides, pesticides, and other chemicals to their crops. They 

contend the injunction is unnecessary to prevent harm to Glenda Plozay, Keith 

Koch, and Forest Hill Farm Products (collectively Forest Hill) and their organic 

farm. Upon our de novo review, we uphold the injunction. 

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

Landsgard rents and operates a traditional farm that abuts Forest Hill’s 

organic farm. Because they operate a traditional farm, from time to time,

Landsgard sprays their fields with chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides. 

Sometimes the Landsgard brothers apply the chemicals themselves, but they also 

hire applicators to apply the chemicals. Forest Hill operates a farm centered on 

selling livestock raised on certified organic pasture. 

Forest Hill asserts that the chemicals Landsgard applies frequently drift onto 

their organic farm. In particular, they cite three incidents in which they believe 

chemical drift occurred. The first occurred August 6, 2019. Upon reporting the 

drift to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), the 

department conducted testing that did not indicate the presence of chemicals on 

Forest Hill property. The second incident, June 17, 2020, did result in IDALS 

determining chemical drift occurred. As a result of that incident, the organization 

that certifies Forest Hill as organic required Forest Hill to increase their setback by 

fifty feet, resulting in a total of about two acres that the farm could not use. The 
3

final challenged incident, July 31, 2020, was not reported to IDALS or the organic 

certification organization. It is unknown if chemicals landed on Forest Hill. 

Forest Hill filed a petition on September 11, 2020, raising several claims 

against various parties, including claims of negligence and nuisance against 

Landsgard.1 A jury found Landsgard was liable on theories of negligence and 

nuisance, resulting in an award of $10,000 for loss of enjoyment of life and 

$4986.84 for lost profits.2 

Following the jury trial, the district court held a hearing on a requested

injunction against Landsgard. The court took notice of the underlying trial, but 

highlighted that the instant hearing was in equity. After noting a lack of 

communication between the parties, the court imposed a limited permanent 

injunction with these restrictions:

1. The Landsgards must give Forest Hill representatives Keith 

Koch and Glenda Plozay at least one hour of advance written notice 

by email or text message of any planned chemical applications by 

the Landsgards or anyone acting at the Landsgards’ request. The 

advance written notice must contain a phone number that the 

applicator may be reached at during the time when the application is 

taking place.

2. Forest Hill representatives are allowed to communicate 

with the chemical applicator if they believe that the conditions are 

inappropriate for applying chemicals at any point before or during the 

application. The chemical applicator may choose to accept or reject 

any requests or suggestions made by Forest Hill representatives. 

3. Anyone applying chemicals to the Landsgards’ rental 

property must read and follow all local, state and federal regulations 

regarding chemical application, comply with all labeling requirements 

for any chemical applied and maintain records of all chemicals 

applied in accordance with all applicable chemical recordkeeping 

requirements.

1 There was significant motion practice in this case. For the sake of brevity, we 

focus only on the claims involving Landsgard. 

2 Landsgard does not appeal the jury verdict. 
4

4. Anyone who applies chemicals to the Landsgards’ rental 

property is required to notify Forest Hill representatives in writing 

within 12 hours of when there is any reason to know or reasonably 

believe that chemicals have entered Forest Hill property by direct 

application or by drifting. The applicator must separately report, in 

writing, any potential contamination to [IDALS] within 48 hours of 

having reason to believe that chemicals have entered Forest Hill 

property. 

5. The Landsgards, and any applicator, must participate in 

good faith in any investigation by [IDALS] or similar investigatory 

agency.

Landsgard appeals the imposition of the injunction. 

II. Standard of Review

The parties disagree on the applicable standard of review. Generally, we 

review injunctive relief de novo. See, e.g., City of Des Moines v. Ogden, 909 

N.W.2d 417, 422 (Iowa 2018). But, “[a]n injunction may be obtained as an 

independent remedy by an action in equity, or as an auxiliary remedy in any 

action.” Harrington v. Univ. of N. Iowa, 726 N.W.2d 363, 365 (Iowa 2007). “In 

either case, the party applying therefor may claim damages or other relief in the 

same action.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1501. Forest Hill sought monetary damages for 

various torts including negligence and nuisance. Forest Hill alleges they sought 

an injunction as an auxiliary remedy, making the case an action at law. 

But the court bifurcated the trial on the tort claims from the matter of the 

injunction. During the hearing on the injunction, the court was clear that it was 

hearing the matter in equity.3 “[T]he manner in which the district court actually tried 

the action determines our standard of review.” Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of 

3

Indeed, the court noted that because it was sitting in equity, it would “err on the 

side of letting evidence in and then, of course sort it out. Just because I let it in 

doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m going to rely on any of it, just that it should 

become part of the record in this case.”
5

Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 452 (Iowa 2013). Because the court heard the matter

in equity, our review is de novo.4 

III. Discussion 

Landsgard appeals the imposition of an injunction requiring them to notify 

Forest Hill when they intend to spray chemicals on their fields. “While we 

emphasize that a permanent injunction is a remedy that should be granted only 

with great caution, an injunction is warranted when it is necessary to prevent 

irreparable injury to the plaintiff and when there is no adequate remedy at law.” In

re Langholz, 887 N.W.2d 770, 779 (Iowa 2016). Injunctions are meant to prevent 

future harm, not punish past conduct. Id. 

“Generally, a party seeking an injunction must prove ‘(1) an invasion or 

threatened invasion of a right; (2) that substantial injury or damages will result 

unless the request for an injunction is granted; and (3) that there is [not another] 

adequate [means of protection] available.’” Ney v. Ney, 891 N.W.2d 446, 451 

(Iowa 2017) (quoting Sear v. Clayton Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 590 N.W.2d 

512, 515 (Iowa 1999)). “When determining whether an injunction is a proper 

remedy, the court must weigh the relative hardship to each party.” Langholz, 887 

N.W.2d at 779. Landsgard challenges the district court’s findings on each prong. 

A. Invasion or Threatened Invasion

“Under the first prong, a party seeking an injunction must prove intervention 

is necessary to protect rights cognizable in equity that have been invaded or 

threatened with invasion.” Ney, 891 N.W.2d at 751. Additionally, an injunction 

4 We note that at oral arguments, both parties agreed the outcome of the case 

would remain the same regardless of which standard we apply. 
6

may be used to “prevent repetition of a trespass . . . rather than continually 

require[ing] the plaintiff” to file lawsuits against the defendant. Id. Landsgard

concedes an invasion occurred during the June 17, 2020 application of FeXapan. 

Forest Hill identifies two other incidents of chemical drift that occurred on August 6, 

2019, and July 31, 2020. Landsgard contends there is no evidence of those 

occurrences. But the owners of Forest Hill testified that they saw the chemicals 

drift onto their property. The lack of definitive soil samples does not automatically 

defeat their allegations—an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of 

absence. See Minger Const., Inc. v. Clark Farms, Ltd., No.14-1404, 2015 

WL 7019046, at *11 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015) (McDonald, J., concurring). 

Landsgard identifies nineteen occasions in which they sprayed chemicals on their 

property between April 20, 2019, and July 20, 2020. The frequent nature of the 

spraying heightens the risk of repetitive injury and litigation. Forest Hill has 

demonstrated an invasion and the threat of future invasion of their property. 

B. Substantial Injury Without Injunction

Turning to the second prong, “a district court generally may not issue an 

injunction unless substantial injury will result from the invasion” or threatened 

invasion of the right. Ney, 891 N.W.2d at 451. Forest Hill testified to the steps 

they needed to take following the June 2020 chemical drift, including imposing an 

additional set back that reduced the amount of land available to use in their organic 

farming operation by about two acres. Continued chemical drift could place their 

certification at risk. That the June 2020 drifting incident did not result in their 

certification being revoked is not dispositive—it is readily imaginable that repeated 

violations of the certification requirements would result in further penalties. And 
7

the injunction helps alleviate the burdens of investigating and reporting potential 

drift to Forest Hill’s organic certifying organization. Moreover, the hour notice 

allows Forest Hill to move their livestock away from the property line, preventing 

contamination from undermining Forest Hill’s assertion that the livestock are raised 

on certified organic pasture. 

As part of this prong, “the court should carefully weigh the relative hardship 

which would be suffered by the enjoined party upon awarding injunctive relief.” Id. 

As noted above, Forest Hill faces substantial injury should chemical drift continue 

unabated. Contrary to Landsgard’s contentions, we decline to find the jury award 

insubstantial just because Forest Hill requested more compensation than they 

received. In contrast, the restrictions imposed on Landsgard in the injunction are 

minor. As Landsgard concedes, the injunction does not prevent them from 

applying chemicals when and where they choose. Subject to local, state, and 

federal regulations, as well as labeling instructions—which Landsgard was already 

obligated to follow—they are free to do as they please so long as certain 

notification requirements are followed. 

The main element of the injunction Landsgard contends as unduly 

burdensome is the requirement that they notify Forest Hill at least one hour before

the application of any chemicals, no matter where on the property they are applied. 

In particular, Landsgard asserts the one-hour notice unduly restricts their ability to 

change plans in the face of shifting weather. 

First, we determine a one-hour notice is equitable—the record 

demonstrates there are several steps that must be completed before the 

application of chemicals, and the application itself can take hours. Notice an hour 
8

before the application, which can be done quickly and easily via email or text 

message, does not appreciably lengthen the process or limit Landsgard’s flexibility 

in applying chemicals to their fields. 

And the court imposing this restriction on the application of any chemical 

anywhere on Landsgard’s property was reasonable. An injunction “should be set 

forth with certainty and clearness so that persons bound by the decree may readily 

know what they must refrain from doing without speculation or conjecture.” 

Langholz, 887 N.W.2d at 780 (quoting Opat v. Ludeking, 666 N.W.2d 597, 605

(Iowa 2003)). The district court was not in a position to go through the multitude 

of chemicals the Landsgards could conceivably apply to their fields. Nor was it in 

a position to list the specific distance from Forest Hill’s property which would trigger 

the injunction for each chemical, which have labeling requirements that differ from 

chemical to chemical and various weather conditions. The injunction imposes 

clear requirements that Landsgard can readily discern. The injunction prevents a 

substantial harm to Forest Hill without imposing a substantial burden on 

Landsgard. 

C. Adequacy of Other Remedies

Finally, we must determine whether alternative legal remedies would 

adequately address Forest Hill’s concerns. Ney, 891 N.W.2d at 451. It is true that 

monetary damages are available for injury from negligent application of chemicals 

and nuisance, the two torts the jury found Landsgard committed. But given the 

repetitive nature of the chemical application, monetary damages may be 

inadequate without interminable litigation. And if further instances of chemical drift 

occur, the risk of losing the organic certification looms large over Forest Hill. 
9

IV. Conclusion

Because Forest Hill established that an injunction is necessary to prevent 

repetitive injury to their organic farming operation, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.