Iowa Arboretum, Inc. v. Iowa 4-H Foundation
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 95
Iowa2016Background
- Iowa Arboretum and Iowa 4‑H Foundation entered an MOU in 1969 to develop 300 acres owned by 4‑H as part of a public arboretum; the MOU envisioned consecutive five‑year leases and review every four years.
- In 1980 the parties executed a written cash‑rent lease for the same 300 acres with a stated 99‑year term; tillable acreage had a formula for compensation if leased.
- The Arboretum developed roughly 250 acres as an arboretum; small portions were used as restored prairie, parking, and a few acres were farmed or under CRP.
- In 2013 4‑H served a notice terminating tenancy, asserting the 99‑year lease violated Iowa Const. art. I, § 24 (agricultural leases limited to 20 years); Arboretum sued for declaratory relief and injunctive relief to enforce the lease.
- The district court granted declaratory judgment for the Arboretum, holding the land was being used for nonagricultural purposes and the constitutional restriction did not apply; it ordered 4‑H to comply with the lease and denied 4‑H summary judgment. 4‑H appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arboretum) | Defendant's Argument (4‑H Foundation) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Iowa Const. art. I, § 24 (term‑of‑years limit) | Lease is nonagricultural—land is used as an arboretum—so § 24 does not apply | The 300‑acre tract is agricultural land; a 99‑year agricultural lease is void under § 24 | Court held § 24 inapplicable because land leased and used for nonagricultural purposes (arboretum); summary judgment denial to 4‑H affirmed |
| Validity/enforceability of the 99‑year lease | Lease is valid and controls despite earlier MOU; parties intended long term nonagricultural use | Lease invalid if constitution applies; also argued factual dispute about whether land is agricultural precludes summary judgment | Court declared lease valid because constitutional restriction did not apply; lease enforceable |
| Effect of MOU (five‑year review language) vs. 1980 lease term | 1980 lease superseded/modified MOU; the 99‑year term governs | MOU required review and successive five‑year leases; Arboretum breached by not holding four‑year reviews | Court treated the 1980 lease as valid modification superseding inconsistent MOU terms; no breach as a matter of law |
| 4‑H breach‑of‑contract counterclaim and defenses | (N/A) Arboretum sought dismissal and alternative defenses (estoppel/unclean hands/waiver/laches) | 4‑H claimed Arboretum breached MOU obligations and sought damages | Court dismissed 4‑H’s breach claim because 4‑H could not show a contractual breach; district court’s disposition affirmed (alternative grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Schildberg Constr. Co., 528 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 1995) (constitutional restriction on long agricultural leases does not apply when land is leased for purely nonagricultural purposes)
- Gansen v. Gansen, 874 N.W.2d 617 (Iowa 2016) (interpretation of art. I, § 24 and limits on multiple renewals that extend beyond 20 years)
- Casey v. Lupkes, 286 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 1979) (elements for applying art. I, § 24: existence of lease, term >20 years, and agricultural purpose)
- Odell v. Durant, 62 N.Y. 524 (N.Y. 1875) (early New York precedent on whether character or use controls determination of an "agricultural" lease)
- Mass. Nat’l Bank v. Shinn, 57 N.E. 611 (N.Y. 1900) (lease for nonagricultural purpose not treated as agricultural when farming is merely incidental)
- Lerch v. Missoula Brick & Tile Co., 123 P. 25 (Mont. 1912) (land fit for agriculture but leased for nonagricultural manufacturing did not fall under term‑limit statute)
- Berry‑Iverson Co. of N.D. v. Johnson, 242 N.W.2d 126 (N.D. 1976) (lease for nonagricultural use of land suitable for farming does not trigger statutory term limits)