Neil A. Lemaster and Stephanie Kempker, plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants v. Joseph Franklin Powers and Merry Lynn Powers, Husband and Wife, Joshua Burch and Christy Burch, Husband and Wife, respondents-appellants/cross-appellees. Larry Sunden and Linda Sunden, Husband and Wife v. Neil A. Lemaster and Stephanie Kemper, defendants-appellees/cross-appellants.
3-784 / 13-0355
Iowa Ct. App.Feb 5, 2014Background
- Dispute among neighboring landowners in Pin Oak Acres over the scope of express easements across several tracts.
- A 1977 plat map shows a roadway easement through Lots 4 and 5 and Outlot 1's Tracts I–III.
- A 1979 document extended the easement through Lot 5 for the benefit of all residential lots; a 1981 document created easements for Tracts I–III.
- A 2008 agreement between LeMaster/Kempker and Lot 4 owners purported to grant exclusive access to a portion of the easement to LeMaster/Kempker.
- District court held LeMaster/Kempker had exclusive rights on Tract I and Lot 4, and restricted others; granted damages to Sundens and Burches and enjoined others.
- This court reverses several rulings, orders the gate removed, and declines injunctive relief against adjoining landowners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are LeMaster/Kempker exclusive easement rights on Tract I? | LeMaster/Kempker hold exclusive easement to Tract I. | No exclusive right exists; easement intended for all tract owners. | No exclusive easement on Tract I; rights not exclusive. |
| Is LeMaster/Kempker's easement on Lot 5 exclusive for motor vehicles only? | Exclusive motor-vehicle easement for Lot 5. | Easement not exclusive and not limited to motor vehicles. | Easement not exclusive to Lot 5; not limited to motor vehicles. |
| Does the 2008 agreement reconfigure prior easements to grant exclusivity to LeMaster/Kempker? | Agreement purports to grant exclusive access to part of the roadway. | Agreement consistent with prior easements and preserves shared access. | Agreement inconsistent with prior easements; excluded as sole basis for exclusivity. |
| Did the district court err in enjoining adjoining landowners from using the easement? | Adjoining landowners are restricted by exclusive easement. | No exclusive rights; injunction appropriate. | Reversed; adjoining landowners may use roadway; no injunction. |
| Was the damage award to the Burches/ Sundens proper? | Damages supported by negligent construction of gravel road. | Damages unrecoverable or unsupported; speculative future harms. | Burches' damages reversed; no valid award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Osborn, 739 N.W.2d 855 (Iowa 2007) (easement basics; express grants and rights; ownership consequences)
- Skow v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275 (Iowa 2000) (fee owner rights limited by easement holder)
- Schwenker v. Sagers, 230 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1975) (easement rights not exclusive; servient owner use permitted)
- Mosebach v. Blythe, 282 N.W.2d 755 (Iowa Ct. App. 1979) (classification of equitable vs. legal claims; scope of review)
- Ernst v. Johnson Cnty., 522 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 1994) (equitable relief considerations in land disputes)
- Van Sloun v. Agans Bros., Inc., 778 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2010) (treatment of legal vs. equitable claims on appeal)