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
This case involved the validity of mortgage agreements affecting an Iowa farming corporation’s real property. The court was asked to determine whether the corporation was liable for notes and mortgage agreements executed by those involved with the corporation and whether there was valid consideration for those documents. Further, the court was asked to determine the issue of attorney’s fees.
The Iowa Supreme Court has issued an important ruling concerning the scope of the Iowa competition (antitrust) law. The ruling narrows the pool of eligible parties that may sue for an antitrust violation, and has important implications for many Iowa consumers - including farmers.
Minority shareholders in a small, close-held farming corporation are in a precarious position. They have no control over management of the corporation and, for example, can’t force dividends to be paid or force a corporate liquidation. The majority shareholders owe the minority certain fiduciary duties such as acting in good faith, but the majority also has the right to operate the corporation as they see fit under the “business judgment rule.”
When a trustee is required to employ the services of an attorney for an action to benefit the trust, the trust can be ordered by the court to pay the attorney fees. In a recent Iowa case there was a dispute between co-trustees regarding declaratory judgment requests and removal of one or more of the trustees. A request for attorney fees was made 47 days following the court’s ruling. The court granted the request and the co-trustee appealed the timeliness of the request.
Under the common law, a fraudulent conveyance can be rescinded. A fraudulent conveyance is established when an owner of the property seeks to place the property beyond the reach of creditors or prejudices the legal or equitable rights of creditors. The court looks for badges of fraud such as inadequate consideration for the conveyance, insolvency of the transferor, and threat of third-party claims.
A mutual mistake in the formation of a contract is a material mistake of belief not in accord with the facts that exists at the time the parties formed the contract. Generally, a mutual mistake will allow the party adversely affected by the mistake to void the contract unless the party is the one who bears the risk of the mistake such as through allocation in the agreement or the party knows it has limited knowledge. The existence of a mutual mistake must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
