According to the Des Moines Register, a no doubt very stable Kansas man has requested that an Iowa court grant his motion for trial by combat for the purpose of meeting his ex-wife, along with her lawyer, "on the field of battle where [he] will rend their souls from their corporal bodies."
See, it's not always Florida where this stuff happens.
That man, 40-year-old David Ostrom, stated in court documents that his ex, 38-year-old Bridgette Ostrom, has "destroyed [him] legally."
Because of this he is requesting that the Iowa District Court in Shelby County give him 12 weeks of notice so that he may have enough time to forge katana and wakizashi swords.
"To this day, trial by combat has never been explicitly banned or restricted as a right in these United States," Ostrom argued. He further added that this method was employed "as recently as 1818 in British Court."
The Des Moines Register reached out to Ostrom by phone on Monday, and he revealed to them that he came up with this idea after hearing a New York Supreme Court Justice concede that duels hadn't been abolished during a 2016 case.
Questioned further, Ostrom said that the plan was borne out of frustration with his ex's aforementioned attorney, Matthew Hudson.
"I think I've met Mr. Hudson's absurdity with my own absurdity," said Ostrom.
He also said he'd make the same request should any other disputes come up in court, so let that be a warning if you have any potential legal issues with the guy. He also said that his ex-wife can let her attorney be her stand-in fighter (or "champion," as he put it) should she choose to go that route.
In a development that should shock no one, Hudson filed a resistance to Ostrom's motion. He also needled Ostrom's spelling skills.
"Surely [Ostrom] meant 'corporeal' bodies which Merriam Webster defines as having, consisting of, or relating to, a physical material body," Hudson wrote. "Although [Ostrom] and potential combatant do have souls to be rended, they respectfully request that the court not order this done."
Hudson further argued that the result of such a duel (see: death) could be far worse than any outcome over issues regarding propety tax and custody agreements.
"It should be noted that just because the U.S. and Iowa constitutions do not specifically prohibit battling another person with a deadly katana sword, it does prohibit a court sitting in equity from ordering same," is a sentence that Hudson was forced to write.
Hudson further requested that the court suspend Ostrom's visitation rights, while also asking that they make him get a psychological evaluation.
Ostrom denied having any history of mental issues. He further told the Register that death wasn't necessary to end a duel, and that trial by combat could end when a losing party submits by crying "craven."
"Respondent and counsel have proven themselves to be cravens by refusing to answer the call to battle, thus they should lose this motion by default," Ostrom argued. He said that, should the other party decide to go ahead and do the duel, then he wishes for them to proceed with sword play in a "blunted practice style."
Ostrom said that he doesn't expect the judge to approve his request, but he still wants an answer. If Hudson actually did come around to take up the offer, for reasons unknown, Ostrom claimed that he'd actually go ahead to do it. "If Mr. Hudson is willing to do it, I will meet him. I don't think he has the guts to do it," he said.
The courts ruling is pending, but you're free to speculate where it's heading.