Gary N. Porter and Lori Porter v. Richard L. Harden and Janice Harden
891 N.W.2d 420
Iowa2017Background
- Richard and Janice Harden lived on a six-acre parcel owned by Gary and Lori Porter for 24 years; the Hardens kept one 38-year-old horse on the property.
- The Porters served a 30-day termination notice (and later a 3-day notice) and brought a forcible entry and detainer (FED) action after the Hardens remained.
- The Hardens asserted as an affirmative defense that they were protected by Iowa Code chapter 562 (farm-tenancy termination rules) because they "occupied the property for agricultural purpose."
- The district court found the keeping of one old horse did not create a farm tenancy and ruled for the Porters; the court stayed execution pending resolution of the Hardens’ separate chapter 560 claim for improvements.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the statutory definition of "livestock" could encompass a single animal and thus a farm tenancy could be based on one grazing horse. The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hardens) | Defendant's Argument (Porters) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether keeping one horse creates a "farm tenancy" under Iowa Code § 562.1A(2) | One horse is "livestock" per § 717.1 and thus satisfies the statutory definition of farm tenancy | A single animal on a residential homestead is de minimis; farm tenancy requires land primarily devoted to crops or care/feeding of livestock | Held: No. A primary-purpose test applies; one horse at the residence did not establish a farm tenancy |
| Whether chapter 560 bars proceeding or execution in the FED action | Chapter 560 prevents issuance of execution when occupant has color of title and made improvements | Chapter 560 does not prohibit adjudication of right to possession; it only restrains issuance of execution until its procedures are followed | Held: FED action may proceed; § 560.1 prevents immediate writ execution but does not bar the proceeding |
| Whether the separately owned back three acres were necessary parties to the FED | Hardens said the disputed parcel included nine acres and the owners of the other three acres should be joined | Porters noted the back three acres are separately owned and not at issue in the FED against the Hardens | Held: No joinder required; the three-acre parcel is under separate ownership and not necessary to this action |
| Applicability of the less-than-40-acre exemption in § 562.6 | (Implied) Hardens argued farm-tenancy protections apply regardless of acreage because livestock present | Porters argued the exemption and statutory context show small, de minimis uses should not invoke farm-tenancy protections | Held: Court observed legislative history and § 562.6 support rejecting a rule that any minimal livestock use on <40 acres automatically creates a farm tenancy (supports primary-purpose test) |
Key Cases Cited
- Horizon Homes of Davenport v. Nunn, 684 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 2004) (standard of review for FED/equitable actions)
- Schaefer v. Schaefer, 795 N.W.2d 494 (Iowa 2011) (deference to district court factual findings in equitable review)
- Benschoter v. Hakes, 8 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 1943) (history and purpose of 1939 farm-tenancy legislation — security of tenure and prevention of waste)
- Morling v. Schmidt, 299 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1980) (prior holding that grazing-only use did not trigger earlier statute limited to "occupying and cultivating farms")
- Petty v. Faith Bible Christian Outreach Ctr., Inc., 584 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 1998) (tenant bears burden to prove affirmative defenses in FED actions)
- In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 2014) (court may consider common meaning when legislative definition is ambiguous)