Court Opinion

ID: 9916811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 18:05:28.831233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:01.174100
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-2067
                            Filed January 10, 2024

SHIRLEY MAE McGUIRE,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

GEORGE THOMAS McGUIRE,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, John R. Flynn, Judge.

      George McGuire appeals the extension of a protective order. APPEAL

DISMISSED.

      Jack Bjornstad of Jack Bjornstad Law Office, Spirit Lake, and Michael Lewis

of Lewis Law Firm, P.C., Cambridge, for appellant.

      Tracy A. Eaton of Miller, Zimmerman & Evans, PLC, Des Moines, for

appellee.

      Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.*

      *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024).
                                         2

GAMBLE, Senior Judge.

       George McGuire appeals the court’s extension of a protective order in favor

of Shirley McGuire. He claims there is no evidence showing he engaged in

conduct that could be objectively deemed a continuing threat to Shirley.

       On June 1, 2021, Shirley filed a petition for relief from domestic abuse under

Iowa Code section 236.3 (2021). The court issued a temporary protective order

the same day. In September, George waived a hearing and consented to entry of

a one-year protective order with Shirley. One year later, Shirley filed a request to

extend the protective order for another year, which George resisted. After a

hearing on October 3, 2022, the court found Shirley presented credible evidence

that George continues to pose a threat to her safety and extended the order for

one year. George filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend, asserting he

had not contacted or threatened violence against Shirley since the protective order

had been entered, so there was no basis for the extension. The court denied his

motion, and George appeals. The protective order has now expired.

       “[A] court will generally decline to hear a case when, because of changed

circumstances, the court’s decision will no longer matter. This is known as the

doctrine of mootness.” Homan v. Branstad, 864 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Iowa 2015).

We will dismiss a case as moot “if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy

because the issues involved are academic or nonexistent.” Id. (citation omitted).

“Our test is whether an opinion would be of force and effect with regard to the

underlying controversy.”    Id. (citation omitted).   We consider four factors in

determining whether an exception to mootness applies: “(1) the private or public

nature of the issue; (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication to guide
                                         3

public officials in their future conduct; (3) the likelihood of the recurrence of the

issue; and (4) the likelihood the issue will recur yet evade appellate review.”

Grinnell Coll. v. Osborn, 751 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Iowa 2008) (citation omitted).

Considering these mootness exceptions, we find they do not apply here. Cf. In re

B.B., 826 N.W.2d 425, 429 (Iowa 2013) (applying exceptions to mootness because

involuntary commitment orders are “an issue of broad public importance capable

of recurring, yet likely to evade appellate review” and finding the committed person

“is presumed to suffer collateral consequences justifying appellate review”).

       The protective order is no longer in effect and poses no direct

consequences for the parties. See R.M. v. D.S., No. 22-0257, 2023 WL 2396417,

at * (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2023) (dismissing as moot a protective order which

expired while pending before this court, noting it “no longer has direct

consequences for the parties” and exceptions to mootness do not apply).

Therefore, “our opinion would have no practical or legal impact.” Brown v. Brown,

No. 17-1316, 2018 WL 2175928, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018) (dismissing as

moot an appeal of a cancelled protective order); see Luman v. Luman,

No. 17-0223, 2018 WL 1099198, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2018) (dismissing

as moot an appeal of an expired protective order), Parson v. Parson, No. 14-0801,

2015 WL 4486341, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2015) (“Because the decision of

the district court to issue the [now-expired] protective order no longer has any

direct consequences for the parties, the appeal is moot.”). The appeal is therefore

dismissed as moot.

       APPEAL DISMISSED.