Jack A. Mixdorf and Shelia K Mixdorf, Geraldine R. Jenner, Trustee of the Geraldine R. Jenner Revocable Trust U/A Dated October 15, 2003, Roland R. Neil and Cheryl A. Neil, Thomas Lee, Kathleen A. Boyd, and Paul Niemann Construction Company v. Jon A. Mixdorf
16-0596
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- Dispute arose from family-transferred parcels originally owned by Albert and Ruby Mixdorf; Jon owns land east of parcels owned by Jack Mixdorf and Geraldine (Jeri) Jenner; Paul Neimann Construction Co. (PNC) owns quarry north of Jon.
- In 2012 PNC removed an old fence to rebuild a berm; in 2013 Jon relocated a farm lane and erected a deer/boundary fence without obtaining a survey.
- In 2014 Jack, Jeri, and PNC sued to quiet title, alleging Jon encroached on their land.
- The district court: granted Jack and Jeri’s quiet-title petition (ordered removal of Jon’s deer fence from their property); denied PNC’s quiet-title petition (found boundary by acquiescence for northern line but ordered removal of farm lane portion encroaching on PNC’s land).
- Jon appealed, arguing adverse possession, boundary by acquiescence, and equitable estoppel to establish different western and northern boundaries, and seeking PNC to pay relocation costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Western boundary — adverse possession | Jack/Jeri: old fence/tree line marked true boundary; no adverse possession by Jon. | Jon: he occupied and used land west of legal line (adverse possession) or parties acquiesced to new line. | Court affirmed: Jon failed to prove adverse possession or acquiescence; historic fence/tree line followed legal boundary. |
| Western boundary — acquiescence | Jack/Jeri: no consent or knowledge of alternative boundary. | Jon: neighbors treated his fence/usage as boundary for 10+ years. | Court affirmed: no clear evidence Jack/Jeri knew or consented to Jon’s claimed line. |
| Northern boundary — acquiescence | PNC: sought quiet title to the true line; district court found acquiescence only to a line near an old post and denied quiet title. | Jon: claimed estoppel based on agreement with PNC superintendent to locate line by flags. | Court affirmed district court: trial court credited PNC witnesses; no clear agreement; boundary by acquiescence found but Jon must remove any encroaching lane. |
| Equitable relief for relocation costs | PNC: no obligation to pay Jon’s relocation expenses. | Jon: PNC should bear cost because he relied on alleged agreement. | Court affirmed: no binding agreement or sufficient evidence to require PNC to pay; Jon acted without a survey and bore responsibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albert v. Conger, 886 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 2016) (standard for boundary-by-acquiescence and appellate review note)
- C.H. Moore Tr. Estate v. City of Storm Lake, 423 N.W.2d 13 (Iowa 1988) (elements required for adverse possession)
- Egli v. Troy, 602 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1999) (burden to prove boundary claims by clear evidence)
- Mahrenholz v. Alff, 112 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1962) (doctrine of estoppel related to occupancy and improvements)
- Louisa County Conservation Bd. v. Malone, 778 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (clarifies burden for adverse possession)
- Brede v. Koop, 706 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 2005) (weight given to trial court fact findings on equitable claims)