Wolf v. Wol

Facts

H and W have been embroiled in a bitter tug-of-war in Arizona and Iowa courts over the physical care of Ashley. Ashley, born in 1985, is now an adult, but the battle continues. H and W divorced in 1990, and the court awarded sole legal custody and primary physical care to W. In 1993 the court modified the decree by granting the parties joint legal custody and primary physical care to H. In 1998 the district court modified the decree, retaining joint legal custody but granting primary physical care to W. H appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, reaffirming physical care in H. By this time, Ashley had moved to Arizona with W, and W petitioned an Arizona court to award her primary care. The Arizona court refused. In August 2000, eleven months after the court of appeals ordered that physical care be returned to H, W was still not returned to Iowa. H obtained a writ of habeas corpus in Iowa and went to Arizona to retrieve Ashley. He brought her back to Iowa, and she lived with him for approximately a month and a half. However, on October 8, 2000, when Ashley was fifteen, she left H's home and flew to Arizona. On November 8, 2000, W petitioned an Arizona court to award her temporary physical custody, but the Arizona court refused, ruling that Iowa retained jurisdiction. W filed a petition in Iowa to modify the decree, and she and Ashley came to Iowa to testify. Once again W did not stay in Iowa as promised, but immediately left for Arizona with Ashley. In an order of December 27, 2000, the district court denied W's modification petition and confirmed H's right to custody. H filed this suit for damages, based on the Wood case and Restatement (Second) of Torts section 700 (1977). W did not appear for the hearing and produced no evidence. Her lawyer, however, appeared for her and moved to dismiss the suit for failure to establish a prima facie case of tortious interference. The court denied the motion. The court found that W induced Ashley to leave her father and not return as ordered by the court. The court based its inducement finding, in part, on testimony that, while Ashley was living with H for a brief time in 2000, W sent an airline ticket, credit card, and a cell phone battery through a friend of Ashley to facilitate her leaving Iowa. She also fled with Ashley during a prior court proceeding in Iowa. By furnishing Ashley with the credit card and related items to facilitate her flight to Arizona, W went beyond merely providing shelter. The trial court found for H and P appeals arguing: (1) the evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of tortious interference, specifically with respect to any active conduct to entice Ashley away from H; (2) there was insufficient evidence of willful and wanton conduct to support a claim for punitive damages; (3) the punitive damages award was excessive; and (4) the court erred in awarding attorney fees to H.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.