Here, neighboring farmers claimed a right to a .3 acre parcel of land that had been operated as a railroad line. The dispute arose when the plaintiff blocked access to a lane that the defendants had previously used to access their farm. The plaintiff filed a quiet title action, and prevailed in the trial court. The evidence showed revealed a deed transferring the land in question to a railroad in 1877. The deed contained a clause specifying that if the railroad abandoned the line, the land would revert back to the grantees, their heirs and assigns. Sometime before 1927, the railroad had formally abandoned the line. In 1967, a tax deed was issued to Jasper County, indicating that the property was acquired to pay the back property taxes that the railroad owed. The county sold the land at auction in 1972. In 2006, the defendants acquired the property via quit claim deed. But, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs were the assignees of the original owners of the property and that the deed resulting from the tax sale of the land was null and void.
The appellate court reversed, determining that the trial court erred in holding that Iowa Code §7862 (relating to railroad abandonment) controlled the case’s outcome. The deed to the railroad predated the effective date of the statute which only applied prospectively from the enactment of its predecessor which was enacted in 1880 (three years after the deed to the railroad). The court also ruled that the quiet title action was untimely. The tax deed was issued in 1967 and, under Iowa Code §448.12, any action to recover the property had to be filed within five years, and the plaintiffs did not challenge the validity of the tax deed within that timeframe (and there was no argument concerning any of the four elements required to defeat a tax deed). So, the plaintiffs’ rights were cut off, but an issue still remained concerning whether the plaintiffs obtained title to the disputed parcel via adverse possession. Thus, the case was remanded for a trial on that issue.
On remand, the trial court quieted title in the parcel by adverse possession in favor of the plaintiff, except for the south twenty feet. The court issued no finding as to the owner of the south twenty feet, but could not find that the plaintiff had proven title to it by boundary by acquiescence. Therefore, both parties, once again, asked the Iowa Court of Appeals to settle the ownership dispute. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the south twenty feet. The court focused on the doctrine of adverse possession’s exclusivity requirement to resolve the dispute. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s possession was not exclusive, because the parcel was used as a farm road and was used by the defendant and numerous other individuals for many years. The plaintiff did not begin farming the 20-foot strip until 2002, thus did exclusively use the land for at least 10 years. Since the parties were not adjoining landowners, the concept of boundary by acquiescence was inapplicable in this case and the court did not address it. Tool v. Nolin, No. 9-751/08-2012, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 1665 (Iowa Ct. App., Dec. 30, 2009) [prior opinion at Tool v. Nolin, No. 8-074/07-0813, 2008 Iowa App. LEXIS 123 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008)].