Den Hartog v. City of Waterloo
2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 59
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Iowa acquired land in 1959 for a four-lane highway later built as a two-lane road; the road and right-of-way became San Marnan Drive and were transferred to the City of Waterloo in 1983.
- The City maintained and used the tract but agreed in 2011 to transfer the existing right-of-way to a private developer (Sunnyside) for $1.00 while relocating the roadway roughly 80 feet south.
- Waterloo taxpayers sued seeking mandamus and an injunction, arguing the City must follow Iowa Code chapter 306 sale procedures for “unused right-of-way” (notice, appraisal, right-of-first-refusal) before transfer.
- The district court found the entire tract was used for public roadway purposes and held chapter 306 sale procedures apply only to land not currently in use, dismissing the taxpayers’ petition.
- On appeal the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the tract qualifies as “unused right-of-way” under sections 306.22–.23 and whether the City must follow the statutory sale procedures before transferring the land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether land previously or currently used as a roadway can be “unused right-of-way” under Iowa Code §§ 306.22–.23 | Chapter 306’s sale rules apply to any land acquired for highway purposes that the agency determines will not be used for roadway purposes going forward, regardless of past or current use | “Unused right-of-way” means only land that has never been used and is not currently used for roadway or related purposes | The court held “unused right-of-way” can include tracts previously or currently used if the agency determines the land will not be used for roadway purposes going forward; the district court erred in a narrower reading |
| Whether the City must follow notice and right-of-first-refusal procedures before transferring the tract | Taxpayers: statutory notice, appraisal, and right-of-first-refusal are mandatory before sale of unused right-of-way | City: those procedures do not apply because the tract is currently used and therefore not “unused” | Held: City must follow the procedures in § 306.23 before selling/transferring the tract |
| Proper statutory construction method | Taxpayers: read §§ 306.22–.23 together, considering chapter structure, purpose, and legislative history | City: interpret the phrase “unused right-of-way” narrowly by textual plain meaning | The court applied contextual and purposive construction, reading §§ 306.22–.23 together and considering chapter 306’s scheme, legislative history, and related provisions |
| Whether transfer may proceed immediately | Taxpayers: transfer must be enjoined until statutory steps are taken | City: transfer may proceed without chapter 306 procedures | Held: reversed dismissal and remanded with injunction instructing City to comply with § 306.23 before transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Koenigs v. Mitchell Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 659 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 2003) (de novo review in mandamus actions triable in equity)
- In re Estate of Whalen, 827 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2013) (standard for reviewing statutory interpretation)
- In re Estate of Melby, 841 N.W.2d 867 (Iowa 2014) (statutory construction using structure and purpose)
- Hansell v. Massey, 59 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 1953) (vacation of road may cause special damages to abutting owners and triggers hearing protections)
- Bricker v. Iowa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 240 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1976) (statutory procedures for road vacation require genuine hearings)