Jerry Westcott and Darlene Westcott, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim v. Roger Malli, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant., 3-1165 / 13-0491

Westcotts entered a real estate contract with Malli on Nov 5, 1988 to buy 80+ acres and buildings within a described legal tract; Malli owned a 2.9-acre parcel at that time.
The Westcotts believed the contract included the 2.9-acre parcel and used it as part of the larger property, based on a highlighted plat map and agent representations.
The Westcotts made improvements and used the land (fence, gates, road, grazing, trees and sheds) and leased it to tenants from 1989–2010, treating it as their own.
Malli later obtained a quit claim deed to the 2.9 acres from the Junks in 1993; the deed was recorded in 1994, and Malli paid taxes on the parcel since 1993.
Malli rarely used the parcel and did not interfere with Westcotts’ use; in 2011 the Farm Service Agency informed the Westcotts they did not hold legal title, prompting this adverse-possession action; the district court found in favor of the Westcotts and they were deemed the legal title holders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse possession established	Westcotts prove hostile, actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession for 10 years	Malli contends possession lacks hostility or right	Westcotts proved all elements by clear and convincing evidence
Mootness of easement by prescription	Westcotts’ adverse possession defeats any need for prescription claim	Easement claim merits analysis	Easement by prescription moot after adverse-possession finding
Admissibility of deceased realtor statement	Statement shows Westcotts’ understanding of inclusion of 2.9 acres	Statement is hearsay and misused to prove ownership	Statement not hearsay; admitted to show understanding/occupancy, not to prove ownership, parol-evidence and statute-of-frauds concerns do not apply
Counterclaims of trespass and conversion			District Court properly dismissed as moot due to adverse-possession ruling
Attorney-fees ruling on appeal	Malli seeks fees for contract breach, trespass, conversion	No statutory or contractual basis for fees	No abuse of discretion; no entitlement to attorney fees on appeal

Rubes v. Mega Life & Health Ins. Co., 642 N.W.2d 263 (Iowa 2002) (standard of review for equity de novo—credibility matters)
Garrett v. Huster, 684 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2004) (adverse possession elements; strict construction)
Louisa Cnty. Conservation Bd. v. Malone, 778 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (maintenance/improvement can support hostility/ownership element)
Lawese v. Glaha, 114 N.W.2d 900 (Iowa 1962) (notice of possession and disclaimer of title when originally held under owner’s title)
Garland v. Branstad, 648 N.W.2d 65 (Iowa 2002) (parol evidence rule applicability to contracts; integrated contract)