Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad D/B/A Canadian Pacific v. Iowa District Court for Louisa County
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 76
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Bridge 110 (railroad bridge over Whiskey Creek) and an adjacent dike historically channeled water under the railroad; periodic siltation and dike failures repeatedly diverted water, flooding adjacent farmland.
- CRI&P originally built and maintained the dike; a 1922 deed contained a covenant requiring CRI&P to maintain the channel/dike.
- In 1976–77 property owners sued; the district court granted a judgment/injunction requiring CRI&P to reconstruct and maintain the dike and granted a prescriptive easement for flow under Bridge 110.
- Ownership of the right-of-way changed hands (Milwaukee Road, IC&E, DM&E); several rebuilds occurred but the dike failed repeatedly; the drainage district previously obtained a contempt finding (and purge) against Milwaukee Road in 1984.
- In 2013 the drainage district filed an application for an order to show cause (contempt) against DM&E to enforce the 1977 injunction; the district court found DM&E in contempt in 2015.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted certiorari and held the 1977 injunction was unenforceable in 2013 because the twenty-year limitations period for actions founded on judgments had run, so the contempt order was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an application to show cause (contempt proceeding) is an "action" under Iowa Code § 614.1 | The drainage district: contempt application enforces a continuing injunction and is timely | DM&E: postjudgment contempt is not an "action" on a judgment subject to the 20-year limit | Court: an application to show cause is a "proceeding" and thus an "action" under § 614.1 |
| Whether a contempt proceeding enforcing a 1977 injunction is an action "founded on a judgment of a court of record" under § 614.1(6) | Drainage district: the injunction remains enforceable against successors and so is founded on the 1977 judgment | DM&E: it was not party to the 1977 judgment; any enforcement is time-barred | Court: the contempt proceeding is founded on the 1977 judgment entered by a court of record and thus falls under § 614.1(6) |
| Whether the 1977 injunction was exempt from § 614.1(6) (i.e., a "specially declared" exception) | Drainage district: injunction is permanent in equity and enforceable | DM&E: statute of limitations governs; no exception applies | Court: no specially declared exception applies; only certain family-law judgments are exempt |
| Whether the 1977 injunction remained enforceable against DM&E in 2013 | Drainage district: prior contempt and notice justify enforcement against successor | DM&E: judgment expired after 20 years; cannot be enforced by contempt | Court: judgment expired in 1997 (20-year limit); contempt enforcement in 2013 was untimely — contempt order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Chi., Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. Lynch, 163 Iowa 283, 143 N.W. 1083 (Iowa 1913) (holds natural flow obligations and earlier dispute over Bridge 110 channel)
- Estes v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, 159 Iowa 666, 141 N.W. 49 (Iowa 1913) (railroad duty to provide sufficient passageways for stream flow)
- Bear v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 540 N.W.2d 439 (Iowa 1995) (equitable principle that permanent injunctions may be enforced when not time-limited)
- Whitters v. Neal, 603 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1999) (discusses renewal and enforceability of judgments under statutory limitation)
- Ney v. Ney, 891 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017) (statutory requirements can limit equitable injunctions)