C&D Mount Farms Corp. v. R&S Farms, Inc. and Roger Stooker, 16-1586

Dispute over a berm/earthen spoil bank on Stooker’s (defendant) land that borders Mount’s (plaintiff) farmland; berm originated when a north–south drainage ditch was dug in the late 1940s and spoil was deposited on the western side.
Berm had been present for decades, was grass-covered, reduced by farming and floods, then raised in 2013 and again after Stooker obtained an Iowa DNR permit in 2014.
Mount bought his property in 2005, farmed in the area for years, and acknowledged the berm’s historical presence though later said he had not noticed it before purchase.
Experts agreed Mount’s land floods earlier and drains to a roadside ditch and that during major river floods both properties flood to the river level; experts disagreed on whether the berm increases flooded area in lesser storm events.
District court found a prescriptive easement/long acquiescence to the berm, credited Stooker’s expert testimony that the berm does not increase Mount’s flood exposure, denied nuisance/trespass claims and injunctive relief; Mount appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stooker breached common law or statutory drainage duties (prescriptive easement/notice)	Mount: berm was constructed/raised by Stooker and altered natural drainage; he lacked notice of an enforceable easement when he bought in 2005	Stooker: berm and ditch existed by agreement since 1940s, creating a prescriptive easement; Mount had actual/constructive notice and acquiesced	Held: prescriptive easement existed and Mount had notice/acquiescence; no breach of duties
Whether berm constitutes nuisance or trespass by backing water onto Mount’s land	Mount: berm repels water during heavy rain/floods and would worsen damage if raised; expert said berm increases flooded acres in some events	Stooker: experts showed berm keeps his land dry but does not increase flooding on Mount’s land in river floods; drainage adequate if maintained	Held: district court credited defense experts; no nuisance or trespass proven
Whether injunction should prevent Stooker from increasing berm height	Mount: future raising will unreasonably interfere and cause substantial injury	Stooker: no threatened invasion of rights; past flooding patterns and drainage maintenance issues (e.g., cornstalk blockage) explain damage	Held: no apparent threatened invasion; injunction properly denied

Ditch v. Hess, 212 N.W.2d 442 (Iowa 1973) (dominant estate may drain surface water in natural course onto servient estate)
Moody v. Van Wechel, 402 N.W.2d 752 (Iowa 1987) (relative elevation controls which tract is dominant; surface drainage on one’s land allowed)
Fennema v. Menninga, 19 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 1945) (ditch or barrier altering natural flow will not be enjoined after ten years’ maintenance with consent)
Guzman v. Des Moines Hotel Partners, Ltd., 489 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 1992) (private nuisance is interference with use and enjoyment of land)
Ryan v. City of Emmetsburg, 4 N.W.2d 435 (Iowa 1942) (trespass requires physical interference with exclusive possession)
Sloan v. Wallbaum, 447 N.W.2d 148 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (injunction appropriate where drainage obstruction will inevitably damage dominant estate)