Gene L. Franklin and Connie Johnson, Executors of the Fae Black Estate Gene L. Franklin, Connie Johnson, Curtis L. Franklin, and Gregory S. Franklin, plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants v. Michael Johnston, Elizabeth Johnston, Steve Johnston, Kasondra Johnston, James Yeager, and Judith Yeager, defendants-appellants/cross-appellees.
15-2047
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- In 1962 adjacent landowners (Estles and Franklins) signed an "Easement and Agreement" permitting the Estles to build and maintain a dam (up to 40 ft in a ditch) that would overflow part of the Franklins’ land and creating a 14-acre lake.
- The agreement granted the Estles a perpetual right to erect/maintain the dam, reserved a restrictive covenant forbidding commercialization of the overflowed area by the Franklins, and included a right of first refusal to buy the overflowed area and a 20-foot shoreline strip.
- The Estles’ property later passed to the Johnstons; the Franklins’ property passed through heirs and ultimately to Fae Black, then to her children after her 2012 death. A 2007 survey revealed the existing fence line did not match the deed boundary, prompting the dispute.
- The Franklins sued (2013) seeking (among other things) declaration they could use the entire lake, that the restrictive covenant was stale under Iowa Code §614.24, and a boundary determination; they later added a §1983 claim alleging sheriff collusion. Both parties sought partial summary judgment; remaining issues were tried in equity.
- The district court: invalidated the commercialization restriction under §614.24, invalidated the right of first refusal as an unreasonable restraint on alienation, found a boundary by acquiescence on the north fence line but not on the south, concluded the Franklins held the right to use the entire lake (expressly, prescriptively, and impliedly) and rejected the §1983 claim; it also held the 1962 agreement did not obligate maintenance of the lake in perpetuity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Franklin) | Defendant's Argument (Johnston) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of commercialization/use restriction under Iowa Code §614.24 | Restriction expired under §614.24 (stale use) because >21 years passed without a recorded verified claim | Restriction is an affirmative easement/contract provision not covered by §614.24; 2014 statutory definition narrows scope so restriction survives | Court: Restriction is a negative easement/use restriction and expired under §614.24; 2014 definitional change does not save it |
| Enforceability of right of first refusal (preemption) | Right should stand to protect adjoining owners and dam from commercialization | Right is an unreasonable restraint on alienation (unlimited duration, unclear procedures, broad scope) | Court: Right of first refusal violates rule against restraints on alienation and is unenforceable |
| Extent of lake-use rights (easement) — whether Franklins can use whole lake | Franklins claim express easement from 1962 agreement and alternatively prescriptive/implied easements to use entire lake | Johnstons contend Franklins may only use the portion over their deeded land; historical use was permissive neighborhood courtesy, not hostile or adverse | Court: Franklins proved a prescriptive easement (hostile, open, continuous, color of title via 1962 document and improvements); Franklins entitled to use entire lake |
| Right/duty to maintain dam or obligation not to drain lake | Franklins: 1962 grant of a "perpetual right to erect and maintain such dam" imposes ongoing maintenance obligation; lake should not be unilaterally drained | Johnstons: Agreement grants right but imposes no perpetual obligation to maintain; owner of dam may abandon or alter it absent covenant requiring maintenance | Court: Agreement grants perpetual right to maintain but imposes no obligation to maintain; Johnstons may drain/abandon dam absent covenant |
Key Cases Cited
- Stew-Mc Dev., Inc. v. Fischer, 770 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 2009) (summary judgment standard)
- Passehl Estate v. Passehl, 712 N.W.2d 408 (Iowa 2006) (de novo review for equity trials)
- Van Sloun v. Agans Bros. Inc., 778 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2010) (statutory interpretation review)
- Amana Soc’y v. Colony Inn, Inc., 315 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1982) (distinguishing negative use restrictions from affirmative easements re: stale-use statute)
- Fjords N., Inc. v. Hahn, 710 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2006) (purpose and effect of §614.24 and tolling by recorded claim)
- Trecker v. Langel, 298 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 1980) (factors for reasonableness of preemptive rights/right of first refusal and rule against restraints on alienation)
- Johnson v. Kaster, 637 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2001) (elements for prescriptive easement/adverse use)
- Grosvenor v. Olson, 199 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 1972) (color of title can support adverse possession/easement claims)
- Brede v. Koop, 706 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 2005) (relaxed prescriptive-easement standard when substantial improvements done in reliance)
- Egli v. Troy, 602 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1999) (boundary by acquiescence requires clear evidence and mutual recognition for 10+ years)