The plaintiff claimed ownership of four parcels of land via adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence. The parcels of land were each less than .2 acres and were located on the borders of the plaintiff’s property. Beginning in 1974, the plaintiff used these parcels for a variety of purposes, including the operation of a boat sale and repair shop. He placed signs for his business on the parcels, parked boats for the business, and improved the areas by planting grass seed and plants. At the time, the plaintiff had an oral agreement to use these portions of the property by the original owner. When the land was subsequently sold to another party, the plaintiff did not assert ownership of those parcels. Also, when the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, he only listed his original parcel as his property. When the subsequent buyer surveyed the land he purchased, he found out that the plaintiff had encroached upon his property. The buyer removed the plaintiff’s landscaping and destroyed a berm that the plaintiff had created to combat erosion on his property. The buyer installed a frontage road on the land for access to his business.
The plaintiff asserted that he was the owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession and boundary by acquiescence. At trial, the court found that the plaintiff proved his case for adverse possession and awarded him damages for the destruction of the landscaping, diminution of property values, emotional distress, and punitive damages.
The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s findings in this case, determining that the plaintiff lacked the appropriate good faith to assert a claim of right to the four parcels. Iowa courts have become increasingly restrictive with allowance of adverse possession claims. Because the property was used with permission, before the sale of the land, the use could never ripen into title for the plaintiff. That’s a fundamental rule, and it is difficult to see how the trial court judge missed it. The appellate court also reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish a good faith belief of ownership because the plaintiff knew he did not have title and he had no basis for claiming an interest in the property. The mere use of the property for the statutory period of 10 years, was not enough, under those facts, to establish a right of possession.
The plaintiff also asserted a claim for nuisance, based upon the defendant’s use of a frontage road east of his property near his home and asked that the defendant reroute traffic. The plaintiff complained of traffic shaking his house, dust being raised and the creation of mud holes. At trial, the court ordered that the defendant was causing a nuisance and he must begin using another road for ingress and egress. The appellate court disagreed, noting instead that the activities on the road had been going on for 35 years without complaint from the plaintiff. Also, the plaintiff’s business had contributed to some of the traffic. Croell Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Baltes, No. 9-019/08-0379, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 205 (Iowa Ct. App., Mar. 26, 2009).