The district court's authority to issue injunctive relief arises in equity, and our review is de novo. See Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa 2001) ; Skow v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275, 277 (Iowa 2000) ; Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co., 249 N.W.2d 655, 657 (Iowa 1977) (applying de novo review to modification). Yet, the decision to issue, vacate, or modify an injunction rests largely within the discretion of the district court.
In Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co., this court stated the court may vacate an injunction "on proof of changed conditions." 249 N.W.2d 655, 656 (Iowa 1977).
A court may vacate an injunction when it "no longer [has] a factual basis." Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co. , 249 N.W.2d 655, 656 (Iowa 1977) ; see alsoBear v. Iowa Dist. Ct. , 540 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Iowa 1995) (holding that the court had the authority to vacate an injunction "if, over time, there has been a substantial change in the facts or law"). "[W]e will not generally interfere with the district court decision unless the discretion has been abused or the decision violates some principle of equity." Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co. , 621 N.W.2d 178, 180 (Iowa 2001).
); 42 Am.Jur.2d Injunctions §§ 4, 9, 323 (1969). The court which rendered the injunction may modify or vacate the injunction if, over time, there has been a substantial change in the facts or law. Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co., 249 N.W.2d 655, 656 (Iowa 1977); 42 Am.Jur.2d Injunctions §§ 317, 318, 334 (1969). The mere passage of time, however, does not invalidate a permanent injunction.
Cases regarding the modification of injunctions state that the court may modify or vacate an injunction "on proof of changed conditions." Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co., 249 N.W.2d 655, 656 (Iowa 1977); 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 287 (2018). See also Bear v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 540 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Iowa 1995) (holding a court has authority to modify or vacate an injunction "if over time, there has been a substantial change in the facts or law.").
"[W]hen an appellate court remands with directions, the trial court must carry out the directions." Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co., 249 N.W.2d 655, 656 (Iowa 1977); see also City of Okoboji v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 744 N.W.2d 327, 331 (Iowa 2008) ("It is a fundamental rule of law that a trial court is required to honor and respect the rulings and mandates by appellate courts in a case."). Our remand direction was to enter a judgment against Theresa for the "full amount of the fraudulently transferred funds from the Schawb accounts."