Monroe Branstad v. State of Iowa Ex Rel. Natural Resource Commission and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 95
| Iowa | 2015Background
- DNR investigated a large fish kill on the Winnebago River (Aug 2008) and concluded silage leachate from Monroe Branstad’s farm caused the kill; DNR prepared a restitution assessment of roughly $61,800 and referred the matter to the Natural Resource Commission (Commission).
- Branstad signed a consent order admitting the discharge but reserved the right to contest restitution; he appealed the DNR restitution assessment and requested a contested-case hearing.
- An ALJ issued a proposed decision affirming the assessment; the Commission held a de novo contested-case hearing, voted to affirm, and the decision became final.
- Branstad obtained judicial review in district court, which found the DNR’s extrapolation method inconsistent with AFS 24, struck the original assessment, and remanded for calculation based on counted fish (resulting in a reduced restitution of $5,298.19).
- Branstad then sought attorney fees under Iowa Code § 625.29(1); the district court denied fees, finding several statutory exceptions applied (including that the State’s role was "primarily adjudicative"). The court of appeals reversed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Branstad's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s role was "primarily adjudicative" under Iowa Code § 625.29(1)(b) so as to bar fee awards | Commission/DNR acted investigatively and prosecutorially; exception should not apply | The Commission’s final action in the contested-case was adjudicative; § 625.29(1)(b) bars fees | Held: State’s role was primarily adjudicative; exception applies and bars attorney fees |
| Whether the DNR or the Commission is the relevant "State" actor for § 625.29 analysis | DNR (investigator) should be treated as the State for purposes of the exception | Statute contemplates DNR investigation under the Commission; the Commission is the final State actor | Held: Commission is the relevant State actor; statutory scheme anticipates DNR investigation and Commission final action |
| Whether the court must decide if Branstad was the "prevailing party" before denying fees under § 625.29(1) | Court should determine prevailing-party status | If an exception applies, feeaward may be denied without resolving prevailing-party question | Held: Because § 625.29(1)(b) exception applies, court need not decide prevailing-party status |
Key Cases Cited
- Remer v. Board of Medical Examiners, 576 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 1998) (defines "primarily adjudicative" and explains test for § 625.29(1)(b))
- Botsco v. Davenport Civil Rights Commission, 774 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 2009) (statutory authorization required for attorney-fee recovery from the State)
- In re Property Seized from McIntyre, 550 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1996) (awarding fees under § 625.29 can be resolved by applying statutory exceptions without deciding prevailing-party status)
- Schaefer v. Putnam, 841 N.W.2d 68 (Iowa 2014) (principles of statutory interpretation cited by the Court)