Everette Hamner, Jennifer Hamner, Judy Skogman, and Susan Himes v. City of Bettendorf, Iowa, an Iowa Municipal Corporation, 15-2154

Landowners (Hamner, Skogman, Himes) own lots in Rolling Meadows adjacent to Stafford Creek; each lot is subject to 25-foot-wide utility/drainage easements granted in 1968.
Dedication and 1968 easement language authorized installation, maintenance, and renewal of utilities and storm/sanitary drainage within the mapped easement areas.
Bettendorf adopted a Stafford Creek Stream Bank Improvement Project that would remove trees, regrade the 25-foot easement area, install retaining walls, rock rip-rap, fencing, and other permanent alterations to stabilize the creek.
City sought appointment of a compensation commission for a 7.5-foot temporary construction easement north of the 25-foot easement; City refused to pay compensation for permanent changes within the 25-foot easement, claiming easement rights allowed the work.
Landowners sought injunction and argued the Project exceeded the easement scope and constituted a taking requiring compensation; district court granted summary judgment for landowners, ruling the Project exceeded the easement and required condemnation/just compensation.
City appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the proposed work placed a greater burden than contemplated by the 1968 easements and therefore required compensation under the Iowa Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City’s proposed streambank-stabilization work falls within the scope of the 1968 utility/drainage easements	Easements permit only maintenance and installation of utilities and drainage infrastructure; the City’s large-scale regrading, tree removal, walls, rip-rap, and fencing exceed that scope and thus require condemnation/compensation	The easements were granted for storm sewer/drainage and utility purposes across the mapped 25-foot area; the City may alter topography and perform stabilization without additional compensation	Held for plaintiffs: the Project materially exceeds the easement’s contemplated uses and imposes greater burden, so it constitutes a taking requiring compensation and condemnation proceedings
Whether summary judgment was appropriate given undisputed facts and solely legal issues	Facts undisputed; legal determination on easement scope suitable for summary judgment	Same	Held: summary judgment proper to decide scope and taking as a matter of law

Stew-Mc Dev., Inc. v. Fisher, 770 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 2009) (scope of an easement is limited to uses contemplated at formation; uncontemplated expanded use may require compensation)
Keokuk Junction Ry. Co. v. IES Indus., Inc., 618 N.W.2d 352 (Iowa 2000) (sets three-factor test to determine easement scope: past physical use, easement purpose, and additional burden on servient estate)
Kucera v. Baldazo, 745 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2008) (standard of review for equitable summary judgment)
Hawk v. Rice, 325 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 1982) (definitions and nature of easements)
Gray v. Osborn, 739 N.W.2d 855 (Iowa 2007) (easement principles regarding dominant and servient estates)
Schwob v. Green, 215 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa 1974) (easement use limited to parties’ intent)
Flynn v. Mich.–Wis. Pipeline Co., 161 N.W.2d 56 (Iowa 1968) (what is reasonably necessary for the easement’s particular purpose is considered)