Search Our Online Library
Discover, read, and monitor a wealth of information on your topic from several different sources.

In this case, a small-town resident appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition to avoid a city ordinance requiring mandatory hook-up to the city sewer system. The resident opposed the city project from the beginning, objecting in particular to the city’s right to enter onto his property for the purpose of “constructing, installing, maintaining, and monitoring the system.”

Annexation can sometimes be a contentious issue. Often misunderstood, however, are the scope of the rights and powers of municipalities and other local governmental bodies involving the annexation process. This case involved a dispute over annexation. The plaintiff (landowner) had been trying to gain approval for installation of an on-site wastewater treatment system. But, the local government had plans to annex the plaintiff’s property and property adjacent to it. Accordingly, the county department of health denied the plaintiff’s permit application for the wastewater treatment system
Inverse condemnation is a legal term that describes a situation where the government takes private property, but fails to compensate the property owner as required by the Fifth Amendment. To be compensated, the property owner must then sue the government. That’s why the action is called “inverse” – the order of the parties is reversed as compared to direct condemnation where the government sues a property owner to take the owner’s property. Caselaw reveals that the taking can be either physical, deprivation of access, removal of ground support or regulatory. Inverse condemnation is not

Iowa law provides that local governments can collect fees and costs associated with the investigation of neglected livestock. However, for a local government to recover, the correct procedure must be followed. That was the point of law at issue in this case.

In 2007, Iowa Court of Appeals rendered an opinion in a legal battle over net metering that has been going on in Iowa for about 10 years. Now, the court has dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in the most recent installment of the litigation.

A frequently litigated issue involves permitted business uses in areas that are zoned as residential. Many local zoning ordinances are not specific concerning what business uses are permissible (and probably shouldn’t be specific in any event), and that fact leads to litigation over questionable uses. Also, in many small-town zoning cases, local politics are involved. All of these matters were involved in this case.

The Iowa Code (Iowa Code Sec. 483A.1) requires a fur-harvester’s license for the trapping of fur-bearing animals (including raccoons and badgers) and vests the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) with the responsibility of enforcing those rules. When an individual violates these laws for the first time, they are charged with a criminal misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses are punished more harshly and may lead to a jail sentence.

Iowa Code §414.3 governs a municipality’s power to zone and requires that zoning regulations be made within a “comprehensive plan and be designed to preserve the availability of agricultural land” and “to encourage efficient urban development patterns.” The statute also specifies sixteen elements that a city must satisfy when adopting zoning regulations, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard in quasi-judicial proceedings. These statutory requirements were at issue in this case.

Practically every state has a noxious weed statute requiring eradication of certain listed weeds by owners and possessors of effected land. Many towns have also adopted similar ordinances. In this case, the plaintiff requested an exemption from the town mowing ordinance when he planted an organic garden and indigenous grasses in his back yard. The city requested that he maintain his yard “in an appropriate manner.” The city subsequently adopted a mowing ordinance requiring property owners to keep their lawn mowed to 8 inches or under.

In the latest installment of the litigation, the Iowa Court of Appeals concluded that the Sweckers were not legally entitled to file UCC financing statements securing interests in Midland’s personal property based on the Swecker’s business relationship with Midland Power Co-op.

Iowa law requires every seller of a motor vehicle to transfer title in a commercially reasonable time. Under Iowa Code §321.45(3), offering to sell a vehicle implies that you hold good title. In this case, an individual purchased two semi-tractors at public auction from a commercial mortgage company. A representative of the company announced at the sale that the titles were guaranteed- meaning that the buyer’s funds would not be dispersed to the company until the title transfer was complete. The buyer took possession of the trucks and assumed that he would receive title within a few weeks.

In Iowa, drainage districts can be formed when there will be a public benefit. Further, Iowa Code provides that drainage of surface waters from agricultural lands shall be presumed to be a public benefit. All formations constructed for these purposes, however, must be surveyed and located along the natural watercourses or natural drainage of the land as much as is practical. Sometimes, however, a drainage district will alter the natural watercourse and increase the volume of water flowing over another’s land.

Every Iowa resident must pay Iowa income taxes. A resident for income tax purposes can be identified in two ways. The first is through the establishment of a permanent home in the state, which involves spending about half the year living in the state. Alternatively, a domicile is another way to prove residence. Domicile is established through the intention of the individual to permanently or indefinitely reside in Iowa whenever absent from the state.

This case presents the question of whether a nonpurchase-money mortgage that refinanced an existing mortgage and advanced new funds is subject to a surviving spouse’s dower interest under Iowa Code § 633.211.

In this case, two banks (the plaintiff and defendant in this case) battled over priority to the proceeds from the sale of cattle. The debtor had dealings with both banks at different times, but all loans were for his cattle operation. From 2003 through 2005, the debtor, a feeder cattle and cow/calf operator, borrowed substantial funds from the plaintiff. He pledged his “farm products” as security for the loan, which included “livestock” and “cattle.” Financing statements were filed with the Iowa Secretary of State for the loans.
Rolling Hills Bank brought a breach of contract action against Mossy Creek Farms for nonpayment of five promissory notes. The notes were executed in favor of a custom cattle feeding operation that had since gone out of business. The feeding operation assigned the notes to Rolling Hills.

In this case, a dairy farmer filed a formal complaint with the Iowa Utilities Board, alleging that he was charged “significantly more” for electric service than other neighboring dairies serviced by Mid-American Energy. In a final agency decision, the Iowa Utilities Board denied the farmer’s request for a formal review and comparison of other local dairies’ utility rates.

In 2004, the plaintiff bought a parcel of land on the edge of town and began residing in a recreational vehicle on the parcel. He contacted the local rural water association and asked to be connected to the distribution system abutting his property. The association offered to connect, but advised him that he would be responsible for the costs and materials of connection. The plaintiff next requested that the city connect his property to the city’s water and sewer systems.

Not infrequently, agricultural landowners find themselves in boundary disputes with neighbors. Under Iowa law, it is possible that a survey will not settle the dispute. Indeed, in rural settings it is often the case that usage determines the actual property boundary. That was precisely the situation in this case. In 1868, a landowner deeded an acre to township trustees for use as a cemetery. In 1953, a descendant of the landowner acquired title to land surrounding the cemetery. A fence bounded the property, including the cemetery property, on the north side. Over time, the cemetery e

As was noted in our discussion of a January Iowa Court of Appeals opinion, boundary disputes sometimes arise in rural settings and it is possible that a survey will not settle the dispute. Instead, it is often the case that usage of the property at issue determines the actual property boundary. Another Iowa case points this rule out.

In urban settings, restrictive covenants are utilized to order the development of lots in a particular fashion. The covenants typically “run with the land” and bind current and subsequent owners to the restrictions placed on title ownership to the property. Common restrictions are those that specify the design and location of property improvements and structures, setback requirements, garaging of vehicles and the type of animals that may be allowed on the property, if any. The idea is to maintain property values by prohibiting unsightly structures or bothersome animals, for example.

A long-standing rule is that certain types of contracts must be in writing to be enforceable. The rule is known as the “Statute of Frauds” and dates back to a 1677 enactment of the English Parliament. One type of contract that must be in writing to be enforceable is when the subject matter involves an interest in real estate. In Iowa, a listing agreement to sell property is subject to the rule and must be in writing to be enforceable. But, what about a verbal agreement to find a buyer for a property - is that a “listing agreement” that is subject to the rule?

In some instances, a seller may forfeit the rights of a buyer under a real estate contract. Under Iowa law, a seller can forfeit the buyer’s interest if the right of forfeiture is reserved in the contract and the buyer fails to satisfy contract requirements that give the seller the right to forfeit the contract. If forfeiture occurs, the buyer loses rights in the property and the property reverts back to the seller unless the buyer corrects the breach and pays the seller’s cost of serving notice of forfeiture within 30 days of being notified of the forfeiture.

Under Iowa law, a county may designate a road as a “minimum maintenance road.” Sometimes a county will also vacate a portion of a road in conjunction with “minimum maintenance” designation. When that happens, adjacent landowners may begin to use the roadway as their own property. If a landowner also begins using the non-vacated portion of the road as their own, questions will arise as to what action is necessary to actually vest title to the non-vacated road in the landowner.

One of the perils of owning real estate in co-ownership is the right of a co-owner to force a partition and sale. That usually happens when one or more of the co-owners wishes to liquidate their interest or wants outright ownership of a particular portion of the co-owned property. Typically, when a partition action is entered into in an ag setting, family members are involved and the proceeding is acrimonious. There are ways to eliminate the possibility of partition, such as by owning real estate in entity form, but often those steps have not been taken.

The Iowa courts have dealt with several boundary dispute cases this year, and this is the most recent case to result in an opinion at the appellate level. Here, the defendant purchased a tract of land in 2002 that had most recently been used as a salvage yard. Prior to that, the tract housed a creamery for 100 years. The defendant fenced the property (due to insurance reasons) and began clearing the tract for a housing development. The plaintiffs purchased an adjacent tract to the north a bit more than a year later.

Under Iowa law, property titles and boundaries can be established after 10 years of usage if certain conditions are satisfied. This is known as obtaining title by adverse possession, and fixing a boundary by acquiescence, and it often arises when a tract of land changes hands. That’s what happened in this case. The parties owned two adjacent tracts. One owner used and maintained an area to the west of their home that they knew was not included in the deed to their property.

The Iowa appellate courts have decided several boundary dispute cases in recent months. These two cases can be added to the list. In the first case, the trial court determined that the plaintiff had not established a fence as a boundary line by acquiescence. That decision was affirmed on appeal. While a boundary can be established by acquiescence that has gone on for 10 years or more, the party claiming a boundary by acquiescence must prove that each of the adjoining landowners had knowledge of the asserted boundary line and consented to it.

Historically, a buyer of a good could not sue another party on a claim that the good was defective unless the buyer had a contractual relationship with the seller. That was known as “privity of contract” and was the rule in the U.S. until a key case involving a person who purchased a new automobile from a dealer. The person was injured in an accident caused by a defect in the car and sued the manufacturer. The court ruled that the buyer could sue the manufacturer instead of being barred because of lack of contractual privity with the manufacturer.

It is not possible to grant an easement just by word of mouth - it must be in writing. That’s because an easement is an interest in real estate and must be in writing to be enforceable. The only exceptions to this rule are when an easement is implied law (known as an easement by necessity) to allow access to a landlocked parcel, or is created by one landowner acquiescing to another party using their property for at least 10 years without stopping them (known as a prescriptive easement).
The Iowa Real Estate Disclosure Act (IRDA) requires sellers of real estate to deliver a written disclosure statement to prospective buyers. The disclosure must include certain information about the condition and important characteristics and structures on the property. But, there are exceptions to the disclosure requirement. The question in this case is whether a bank that acquires property via a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and then re-sells the property is subject to the disclosure requirement.

In Iowa, sellers of real estate must comply with the Real Estate Disclosure Act (Iowa Code Ch. 558A). The Act requires sellers to disclose certain information about the property relating to the property’s condition and important characteristics, as well as structures located on the property. Basically, the law requires sellers to disclose any known defects in the property as well as the general condition of the property - important points that can impact the property’s value. But, must the possibility that a hog confinement facility might be constructed nearby be disclosed?

It is commonly known that earnest money is a deposit made by a buyer towards the purchase of real estate to demonstrate that the buyer is serious in wanting to complete the purchase. If the seller accepts the buyer’s offer, the earnest money is generally held in escrow until closing and is then applied to the buyer’s portion of the remaining costs associated with closing the contract. If the buyer retracts the offer, the buyer forfeits the earnest money. If the offer is rejected, the earnest money is usually returned, since no binding contract was entered into.

A key point in real estate deals is to make sure that deed language clearly specifies the interest that is being conveyed and the parties involved. Lack of clarity can lead to litigation, even among family members. In this case, two brothers operated a farm partnership together for many years. During that time, they acquired several tracts of farmland. They acquired one of these tracts under an installment contract in 1972. Payments under the contract were completed in 1987 at which time the sellers gave a warranty deed to the brothers in their individual names.

Here, the property owners appealed a district court decision finding that the county held a prescriptive easement across their property. An easement by prescription is similar to the concept of adverse possession. In Iowa, if an individual possesses someone else’s land in an open and notorious fashion with an intent to take it away from them, such person (known as an adverse possessor) becomes the true property owner after ten years.

The Iowa courts have decided two more fence cases in recent weeks. In the first case, township trustees were called to make a fence view in settlement of a dispute between two landowners. The township trustees assessed the costs of repairing the fence, apportioned costs between the parties, and determined trustee’s fees, clerk fees and set the appeal bond. The trustees assessed $3000 in trustee’s fees and $1250 in clerk fees, of which the defendant was responsible for nearly $3000.

The Iowa Court of Appeals has decided still another boundary dispute case. This time, the court’s opinion illustrates the peril of relying on neighborly accommodation to establish a boundary.

The Iowa courts have dealt with numerous cases in recent months dealing with boundaries and various rights to use property. This case adds to the list and illustrates that land purchasers must always check for any encumbrances upon the land and understand what those encumbrances mean. The issue is especially important when land is subdivided and sold off in lots.
A joint tenancy is signified by the right of survivorship- when a joint tenant dies, the surviving tenant (or tenants) own the property.

The doctrine of equitable mortgage is a long-standing form of security interest in Iowa. Although there may be an absence of a mortgage instrument or a recording, state courts often find the existence of a mortgage if clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence indicates the parties intended to form a debtor/creditor relationship. This case involved a land transaction and whether it was more properly viewed as a sale and leaseback, with option to purchase, or as an equitable mortgage.

Claiming ownership by adverse possession requires proof of the elements- that possession was hostile, actual, open, exclusive and continuous, for at least ten years. But, must a claim for adverse possession be based on a belief of ownership arising from the establishment of the elements? If so, can adverse possession ever arise apart from a boundary dispute?

Advertising billboards in farm fields are a common sight along the interstate highways. Normally, the company negotiates a long-term lease with the landowner. This case involves the ownership, operation, and maintenance of a billboard along Interstate 80. The trial court found that the billboard lease at issue was not void, because the landowners were not good faith purchasers and were on notice of the billboard.

In this case, the plaintiff decided to sell her home. Because she was unfamiliar with the process, she asked the defendant, a co-worker of her deceased husband to help. In the process of trying to get the house sold, an intimate relationship developed between the parties. During this three-year period, however, the plaintiff’s house never sold for the asking price of $90,000. Later, the defendant bought a home for $76,000.

Iowa law requires that both husband and wife sign a mortgage agreement when encumbering homestead property. That requirement was at issue in this case.

A prescriptive easement is an easement determined to exist by law that gives the easement holder the right to use a part of another person’s property once it has been determined that the party asserting the easement has used the property in a certain manner for a set number of years (10 years in Iowa). This case involved a county’s assertion of an easement for a road over a strip of the plaintiff’s property.
When there is a boundary line dispute between neighboring properties, many people learn first of the doctrine of “adverse possession" - a legal principle derived from the common law under which ownership of a parcel of property (or a portion thereof) can change without payment and against the will of the owner. However, it is not always necessary to resolve a boundary dispute through a claim of adverse possession, and its requirement of a "hostile" taking.
Overview
A recent opinion of the Iowa Court of Appeals reaffirms the principle that a restrictive covenant can be created by a plat. The court's opinion is a reminder that care must be taken in the preparation of plat maps, title opinions and when further development of lots contained in subdivisions is anticipated.

If an owner of real property fails to pay real estate taxes on the property, the possibility exists that the county may sell the property to recover the unpaid tax. But, there are statutory procedures that must be followed for the tax-sale buyer to actually end up with legal title to the property. Those procedures can become complicated when the tract at issue is leased to a tenant who has possession of the property – that’s what was involved in this case.

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 ha

In yet another property ownership dispute case, the court discusses what it takes to obtain ownership to property either by adverse possession or by an easement by prescription. Here, the parties own separate tracts of real estate on opposite sides of another tract to which they both claimed ownership rights. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on representations made to them, payment of property taxes and use of the tract. The defendants claimed ownership based on representations, their use and maintenance of the property, and improvements made to the property. In 2003, the plaintif