Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Company v. Calhoun County Board of Supervisors, Acting as Trustee for the Drainage District No. 86
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 74
| Iowa | 2012Background
- CCP, a private railroad, intersects Drainage District No. 86; the district is managed by Calhoun County Board of Supervisors as trustee for the drainage district.
- The 1908 drainage line intersecting the railroad was constructed by the drainage district; the board is tasked with repair and maintenance of drainage improvements.
- In May 2008 a sinkhole and collapsed tile at the intersection caused a temporary railroad slowdown and repairs by CCP.
- CCP voluntarily repaired the tile by installing a steel casing and new tile, incurring costs of $11,003.28 plus train-delay costs; CCP sought reimbursement from the Board.
- The Board denied reimbursement; CCP filed a petition under Iowa Code chapter 468 seeking damages for the repair costs and related delay costs; the district court dismissed CCP’s petition.
- The court of appeals affirmed, CCP sought further review, and the supreme court granted review to address statutory remedies and procedures for reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private parties may seek reimbursement after voluntary repair of a drainage intersection | CCP argues §468.83 allows reimbursement appeals | Board contends no private-money-reimbursement action exists | No; private reimbursement actions are not allowed; mandamus is the proper remedy |
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy for board inaction to repair drainage improvements | CCP could obtain reimbursement due to emergency repair | Mandamus is required to compel repairs, not reimburse voluntary repairs | Mandamus is proper remedy for board inaction; CCP’s voluntary repair bypassed statutory procedures |
| Whether the appeals provision §468.83 applies to this reimbursement dispute | CCP should be able to appeal denial of reimbursement | Appeal provision applies only to actions challenging board decisions, not mandamus-type inaction | §468.83 does not permit review of a claim based on private voluntary repair; mandamus remains proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. Bd. of Supervisors, 242 Iowa 870 (Iowa 1951) (mandamus proper remedy for board’s failure to repair; not appealable under §468.83)
- Welch v. Borland, 246 Iowa 119 (Iowa 1954) (mandamus to compel drainage repairs; reflects limited judicial action against districts)
- Voogd v. Joint Drainage Dist. No. 3-11, 188 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 1971) (mandamus framework and remedies for board inaction)
- Fisher v. Dallas County, 369 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1985) (drainage district immunity and limits on suits; district actions restricted to compulsory performance)
- Gard v. Little Sioux Intercounty Drainage Dist., 521 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 1994) (drainage districts are not subject to damages suits; actions limited to mandamus/compulsion)
- Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co. v. Webster Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 880 F. Supp. 1290 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (informational, related to crossing improvements (not official reporter))
- Rock Island & Pac. Ry. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 196 Iowa 370, 194 N.W. 266 (Iowa 1923) (allocation of costs when railroad intersection; early framework for §468.111)