We have written detailed reviews of Iowa law impacting agricultural producers and landowners. Access these reviews by clicking on the tiles below. You can also review Iowa cases on a particular subject by searching our list of Iowa case law reviews at the bottom of this page.
Search Iowa Resources
A landowner signed a contract with a logger to cut down mature trees on his property. The landowner owned some of the property outright, but on some of the property the landowner owned it as a co-tenant with his four children. The logging contract specified that the landowner would receive 60% of the profits from most of the trees and the logger would receive 40%. For walnut trees, however, the owner would receive 65 percent and the logger 35 percent. Further, the agreement provided that the owner’s children would receive 5 percent of the owner’s proceeds.
A residential subdivision was being developed in the City of Forest City. A civil engineering firm and its employee were contracted to provide surveying and planning, street and utility design, and to prepare a grading plan to establish grades and elevation on the street for the project. The defendant, a construction company, was contracted to do all of the grading, paving, and utility improvements on the project. The contract required that all services be completed in a workmanlike manner.
Unjust enrichment can occur when one party unfairly benefits from the investment of another party. In such situations, the law looks to equitable principles to find a fair solution.
A right of first refusal is triggered upon the happening of certain events. One of those triggering events could be the owner’s decision to sell the property. In that event, the right is conditional until the party holding the right is notified of a third party offer to purchase the land. Once this occurs, the right is no longer conditional and becomes an option to purchase the property, which requires strict compliance with the terms of acceptance.
Many states, including Iowa, criminalize the intentional killing, injuring, maiming, torturing or mutilating of dogs (just ask Michael Vick). However, Iowa, along with many other states, provides an exception to that rule, making it lawful for a person to kill a dog caught “worrying, chasing, maiming, or killing any domestic animal or fowl.” The rationale behind the law is to protect domesticated livestock, and it is a complete defense if a person shoots a dog while in the act of harming domesticated livestock.
Federal law prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if a criminal no-contact order is in place against that individual in cases where the protected party fits the description of an “intimate partner.” So, can a person subject to a criminal no-contact order lawfully possess a firearm for the purpose of hunting alone?
Several cases of securities fraud have recently been discovered in Iowa. In this case, the defendant appealed his multiple convictions for ongoing criminal conduct, first-degree theft, securities fraud, transacting business as an unregistered broker/dealer, and sale of unregistered securities. The defendant argued that the trial court judge erred in several ways, namely by failing to instruct the jury on the identity of the victims of some of the theft charges and improperly defining the elements of securities fraud in Iowa.
The Iowa Attorney General’s Office has sued a convenience store operator in northeast Iowa, for fraudulently selling E85 fuel as regular unleaded and E10. The suit has been filed in Blackhawk County District Court and names Jerry Fratzke as the defendant. Fratzke, of Jesup, Iowa, owns Pronto markets in Sumner, Fairbank and other locations. The Attorney General sued after an investigation by the state Weights and Measures Bureau of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship revealed that the Fairbank and Sumner Pronto Market stations were receiving shipments of E85 fuel from
The defendant pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury and was sentenced to 60 days in jail, given probation, fined and ordered to pay $1266 in Medicaid expenditures triggered by the victim’s injuries. The defendant appealed the portion of the sentencing order requiring him to pay for the victim’s Medicaid expenses.
This case shows, once again, the importance of getting agreements with contractors in writing- especially if there is some question as to their financial well-being or trustworthiness. Here, a financially-stressed contractor failed to pay bills for materials and ended up being charged with theft as a habitual offender.
Iowa Code §481A.125 deals with the intentional interference with lawful hunting activities in Iowa and imposes misdemeanor penalties for violations. In this case, a landowner who had previously been charged for allegedly shooting a handgun at a group of hunters in 2000, found himself in a similar situation with the same group nearly six years later. In 2006, an eleven-member hunting party had permission to hunt on the land adjacent to the plaintiff. While the landowner was doing morning farm chores, he allegedly saw a hunter (his neighbor) climb the fence and enter onto his land.
The Heemstra/Lyon dispute has had many developments. Here, the Heemstra family appeals a trial court ruling that they transferred substantial real estate holdings to various family trusts and other entities in an effort to hinder and delay creditors. But, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s award to the Lyon estate of approximately $200,000 in compensatory damages and punitive damages of nearly $750,000. The Heemstras’ argued, on appeal, that there was no conspiracy to defraud the Lyon Estate.
It is usually a good idea to reduce contractual matters and other arrangements to writing, even if family members are involved. The plaintiffs in this case are a married couple with a five year old child. The defendant is the uncle of the wife of the married couple. The defendant had a practice of allowing his grandchildren to use his horses as 4-H projects free of charge. In the summer of 1999, the plaintiffs visited the defendant’s farm and the child rode one of the defendant’s horses. The horse was gentle and had been used in 4-H projects in the past.
One fundamental principle of the law governing surface water is that it is wrongful for a landowner to disturb the existing pattern of drainage and, as a result, obstruct the flow of water from someone else’s property, or cast upon someone else’s property more water than would naturally flow on it, or cause an unusually high concentration of water in the course of drainage. That’s a big issue for rural landowners owning land next to a tract that is being developed or, as in this case, owning land near a highway construction project.
Sometimes landowners, especially in small towns, tend to ignore city ordinances when building and/or placing structures either on their property or adjacent to it. Often, public officials in these small communities either tend to not enforce existing ordinances or enforce them inconsistently. But, if a city chooses to enforce a restriction against obstructing a public right-of-way, must the city show that the obstruction interferes with travel or causes some sort of damage? That was the issue in this case.