Opinion ID: 1997955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In Myers v. Caple, 258 N.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Iowa 1977), we said:

Text: The equitable power to enjoin is exercised only under extraordinary circumstances. It is not a routine remedy. It is designed primarily to avoid irreparable damage and to afford relief when there is no adequate remedy at law. [Authorities.] The party seeking an injunction has the burden to show not only a violation of his rights but also that he will suffer substantial damage unless one is granted. [Authorities.] In deciding whether an injunction is appropriate, we are committed to the relative hardship or balance of convenience standard. Kriener v. Turkey Valley Community School District, [212 N.W.2d 526, 536 (Iowa 1973),] and Johnson v. Pattison, [185 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Iowa 1971)]. In the latter case we said: Equity usually invokes its extraordinary injunctive power only when necessary to prevent irreparable harm or when the complaining party is otherwise without an effective remedy. If the injury is slight and the injunction would result in serious hardship or loss to the defendant, courts have refused to enjoin, leaving the plaintiff to his claim for damages. Under this comparative injury doctrine, injunctions which are likely to cause greater injustice than they seek to prevent are properly refused. We have often held that courts do not usually enter injunctions to prevent acts which are independently subject to penal laws. See State ex rel. Clemens v. ToNeCa, Inc., 265 N.W.2d 909, 915 (Iowa 1978). II. We believe the petitioner has not shown the inadequacy of the legal remedies available for defendants' alleged victims. The state has ample power, under Iowa Code chapter 808, to seize any goods known to be stolen. Under Iowa Code section 809.3, any property so seized would be subject to a claim by any person asserting the right to possess it. The petition asserts there are only two victims of defendants' alleged crimes. They are known business entities, and there is nothing to indicate they could not look after their own interests. Neither do we think that the injunction sought here is an appropriate means of ensuring reimbursement to the county under Iowa Code section 910.2. The county's right to reimbursement under that section is not certain. It may be ordered only after the victims have first been paid, and then after the court determines a defendant is reasonably able to do so. Moreover, the section authorizes reimbursement only for court costs and attorney fees, and not for the additional costs petitioner seeks here. Finally, we find the cure sought by the county attorney is apt to be worse than the disease. Most or all of the assets which the state seeks to freeze might lawfully belong to the defendants. These assets might be needed to finance their defense. Under our criminal justice system defendants are presumed innocent of the pending charges. They are entitled to a trial. The possible injustice to them is not outweighed by the possible advantage to the county. AFFIRMED.