The case is Julian Toney v. Arthur Parker, Hazel Parker, and the Arthur E. Parker and Hazel Frances Parker Trust dated 5/26/1993, No. 23-1830 (Iowa Ct. App July 23, 2025).
Background
Beginning in the 1970s, Toney and his family rented a twenty-four-acre parcel of land—known as the “Y farm”—from Ruth Parker. After Ruth’s death, ownership passed to her son, Arthur Parker, and his wife, Hazel, and the property was eventually placed into a trust. Toney continued renting the land for farming, cattle, and timber operations, paying $200 per year. Over time, he made several offers to buy the property, all of which were declined.
In September 2016, the Parkers listed the Y farm for sale. In response, Toney claimed the land was an Indian burial ground, posted signs asserting development restrictions, and alleged he had a lifelong lease with Arthur Parker. He also offered to purchase the property for $1,000 per acre, which the Parkers rejected.
Trial Court
The trial court concluded that the alleged lease and purchase option were “a fiction and a forgery” created by Toney to render the title unmarketable, and that he intentionally slandered the title. The court also found him liable for trespass. To calculate damages for slander of title, the court took the agreed sale price of $86,100 and subtracted Toney’s $24,000 offer, awarding approximately $62,000 in special damages. It also awarded $1 for trespass-related loss of value due to posted signs, and $822 in attorney fees.
Court of Appeals
Toney appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of the property’s marketable value. The Iowa Court of Appeals agreed, noting that the Parkers were required to prove the marketable value of the land was less than $86,100 at the time of the alleged slander. The only evidence offered was Toney’s rejected offer. The court reaffirmed that unaccepted offers are not admissible to prove value, citing Hardaway v. City of Des Moines, 166 N.W.2d 578, 581 (Iowa 1969), and Danamere Farms, Inc. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 567 N.W.2d 231, 232 (Iowa 1997). Without admissible valuation evidence, the Parkers’ slander of title damages could not stand.
The appellate court vacated the damages award for slander of title, leaving only the trespass finding, which was remanded for further analysis separate from the slander claim. This case underscores the necessity of proving financial loss through recognized valuation methods, such as appraisals, expert opinions, or comparable sales under similar conditions. More simply put, because there was no legally sufficient proof that the Parkers had lost—or would lose— any portion of the $86,100 in the future, the appellate court ruled in Toney’s favor on the slander of title claim.